Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Constitutional Law 2 (Bill of Rights)
Constitutional Law 2 (Bill of Rights)
(Bill of Rights)
2
relation to the rights of the people, there is always a struggle
between state authority and individual liberty.
I just want to start by saying that of all the subjects that I have Q: Why do I say that?
been teaching in law schools, this is my favorite. I might have told
2. State Authority vs. Individual Liberty
you in the beginning that I have handled about 17 or 18 subjects
since I’ve started teaching and the BOR is the closest to my heart. When you have a large democratic space, in the end, state
The reason is that I became a lawyer during martial law. I started authority is very limited. The state does not interfere with the
my law school in 1982. Part of the reason why I entered into law individual rights. But during periods of dictatorship or
school because of what happened during the Marcos dictatorship. authoritarian rule, the result is that, state power becomes larger
That’s why I’m a little bit passionate about this subject. If you see while individual liberty shrinks or it becomes smaller. In the end,
or hear what I’m talking about, you know where I’m coming from. it’s a struggle between state authority and individual liberty; and
You may not agree with me because after all, knowledge is just an the SC should be the one to tell us the limits of where should state
interpretation of reality. authority end or where should individual liberty begin. That is
always a balancing act; and that in effect is the focus of the BOR.
Parts of the Constitution:
This is a study between state authority and individual liberty.
1. Constitution of Government – Defines the powers of We’ll try to do the balance; we’ll try to do the boundaries but we
government and distributes it among various organs that is must admit that that one is not always easy to draw.
what we’ve learned in Consti 1. For instance, we learned about the
If you look at the entire sections that we would be studying, we
legislative power, executive power and the judicial power.
would be dealing with 22 sections of one article. I outline this in
2. Constitution of Sovereignty – Provides for the methods and this manner:
procedures for amending or revising the fundamental law if
Content/Arrangement of the 22 Sections:
you look at the definition, it’s easy for you to tell what is it. Simply
put, that means actually the section; the last item which we
discussed in Consti 1 – that is the article in amendment and 1. Secs. 1-11 – civil and political rights
revision. That is the one where it is reserved to the people the right
to amend or revise the Constitution. a. Civil rights are those which we enjoy as members of
a political society
3. Constitution of Liberty – Guarantees the fundamental rights
and liberties of citizens (Limitations on the Power of the State) b. Political right allow as to participate in the affairs
essentially, the Constitution of Liberty pertains to the Bill of of government
Rights. That is the topic of Consti 2.
2. Sec. 12-22 – rights of suspects, those on trial or
those convicted of offenses (crime-related rights]
It is good to understand now (though I emphasize it again) if you
look at the term Constitution of Liberty, constitutes a limitation The Bill of Rights do not guarantee Economic, Cultural
of the power of the government. Meaning, it granted the and Social Rights
government the power to do almost everything but we reserve
certain portions of it which cannot be trampled upon by the
This has already been asked in the bar, so I put the definition here.
government – that will pertain to the provisions of the BOR.
Essentially the BOR/Constitution of Liberty constitutes a Q: What are civil rights and what are political rights?
limitation on government power.
These are covered by Section 1-11. They are sort of just mingled.
Basic Concepts:
a. Civil rights are those which we enjoy as members of a
Definition - Bill of Rights – List of Rights political society
1. Why did the framers them in the Constitution put them Q: What are these rights?
here? Why don’t they leave it to Congress? (because you know
that many of our rights are actually defined by statutes. They As members of a political society we have the:
are not listed in the Constitution)
Right to associate;
Because the framers of the Constitution were thinking that these Right to information;
rights were also important; that they want it to be beyond the Freedom of religion
power of Congress, the executive and even the courts. These rights
actually are the core rights that an individual should have. In These are the rights as members of a certain political society.
effect, you look at the BOR from the naturalist perspective, we do
not consider the state or the government as the origin or the Q: What about political rights? How do we distinguish it from
source of these rights; the state simply guarantees them. It civil rights?
guarantees to protect these rights but they are not the authors or the
origin of these rights.
b. Political right allow as to participate in the affairs of
I told you earlier that maybe this is a new conceptual matter that government
we need to expand. If you look at the structure of government in
2
The classic right which allows us to participate is voting. 5. Provisions of the Bill of Rights are generally
But the right to vote or suffrage is not found in the BOR; it applicable to aliens
is in another section.
6. Provisions of the Bill of Rights are generally
Q: What are the political rights which are covered by the subject to restrictions or are not absolute
BOR?
The classic example would be the right to free expression. NOTE: Try to remember the basic principles which are applicable
to the BOR.
Q: Why do I call that a political right?
MAIN PRINCIPLE: The BOR serves as a limitation on the
Because if we try to exercise our right to free expression, for
power of the government.
instance we criticize the government, it tends to change policy. I
think we know that from experience that if the people complain
about this, usually the government acts, recently, the doctors
1. Provisions of the Bill of Rights are self-executing
complained asking for a time off so the President decided to extend
(“ready for use”] – the framers of the Constitution and
the MECQ in Manila. In a sense, our freedom to express ourselves,
Justice Leonen in some of his decisions, would say the
freedom of speech, freedom of the press, allows us to indirectly
provisions of the BOR are ready for use.
participate in the affairs of government. That’s why we call it
political right.
Q: What do we mean by that?
Sec. 12-22 – rights of suspects, those on trial or those
If there is a case involving somebody, he can immediately invoke
convicted of offenses (crime-related rights]
the BOR and the SC actually can apply it.
2
constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and rights there which are, by express command of the
seizures applies as a restraint directed only against the Constitution, does not seem to be applicable to aliens.
government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of For instance, aliens will also have the:
the law.—The right against unreasonable search and seizure is
a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. Evidence Right to life;
acquired in violation of this right shall be inadmissible for any Right to property; and
purpose in any proceeding. Whenever this right is challenged, Freedom of religion
an individual may choose between invoking the constitutional
protection or waiving his right by giving consent to the search
and seizure. It should be stressed, however, that protection is
against transgression committed by the government or its agent. 6. Provisions of the Bill of Rights are generally subject
As held by this Court in the case of People v. Marti, “[i]n the to restrictions or are not absolute – there is only one
absence of governmental interference, liberties guaranteed by
provision which has already been asked in the bar;
the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State.” The
some actually are not that certain. But there is only 1
constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and
seizures applies as a restraint directed only against the question which I am fairly certain which is really
government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the absolute. But we will go to it when we reach the proper
law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to whom bar question because it seems that almost all of them
the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of can be subject to limitations so in our study of the
power is imposed. BOR, we are trying to find out whether this limitation is
valid or not, because as I told you in the beginning, the
Same; Same; Same; The constitutional protection against job of the SC is to draw the line between state power
unreasonable search and seizure does not apply, case at and individual liberty because almost all rights are not
bar.—In the case before us, the baggage of the accused- absolute.
appellant was searched by the vessel security personnel. It was
only after they found “shabu” inside the suitcase that they Since the Bill of Rights are not absolute, how do we know
called the Philippine Coast Guard for assistance. The search whether the restrictions impose by the State are valid? Another
and seizure of the suitcase and the contraband items was way of putting it is:
therefore carried out without government intervention, and
hence, the constitutional protection against unreasonable search Q: What are the tests applied by the SC to find out whether a
and seizure does not apply. restriction of a right – either done by Congress or by the
executive – would be valid?
Same; Same; Same; The vessel security officer in the case at
bar is a private employee and does not discharge any I’m sure your all familiar with these terms. These are actually
governmental function.—There is no merit in the contention taken from American Constitutional Law; but over the years,
of the accused-appellant that the search and seizure performed especially now, the SC has embedded this in Philippine
by the vessel security personnel should be considered as one jurisprudence. So you ought to be very familiar with these 3 tests.
conducted by the police authorities for like the latter, the
former are armed and tasked to maintain peace and order. The Tests Applied by Supreme Court
vessel security officer in the case at bar is a private employee
and does not discharge any governmental function. In contrast, a. Strict scrutiny test;
police officers are agents of the state tasked with the sovereign
function of enforcement of the law. b. Intermediate scrutiny;
2
Freedom of religion; Try to remember that for a moment because I’ll explain that when
Freedom of privacy; and the we go to the freedom of speech because that will come up again
Right to travel and again.
*The SC has regarded them as fundamental rights. When is the intermediate scrutiny test applied?
Therefore, if there is any restriction to find out whether the
restriction is valid or not, you will have to apply the strict When the challenge restriction does not involve fundamental
scrutiny test. rights or suspect classes (classification based on gender,
legitimacy, financial need and age). Also if the restriction on
The 2nd category when the SC will apply the strict scrutiny speech is content-neutral. Chavez v. Gonzales, 555 SCRA 441
test will be this – also taken from American jurisprudence; (2008) (no heavy presumption of unconstitutionality/substantial
but I got this from the decision of the Philippine SC1: government interest)
a.) Race – In the Philippines actually, we have no problem TAKE NOTE: It does not involve fundamental rights or there is a
with race because rarely, if ever, any case will arise regarding classification but it does not involve suspect classes.
race. But we have this in the US because of the problem of
apartheid or racial discrimination. Q: What will be these classifications which does not involve
suspect classes?
b.) Alienage – In the Philippines, alienage or national origin
does not seem to be much of an issue. Because in the It is based on:
Philippines, we all know for instance, that aliens are not
Gender;
allowed to hold public office, aliens are not allowed to own
Legitimacy;
lands in the Philippines. In a sense, they are a little bit
Financial need; and
discriminated so this is not common in the Philippines.
Aids
c.) Religion – But this can happen that classification based
*They are not suspect classes. The SC will only apply the
religion will be subjected to strict scrutiny. That can happen
intermediate scrutiny.
easily in the Philippines.
Also if the restriction on speech is content-neutral. Chavez v.
TAKE NOTE: When it involves a violation of the: Gonzales, 555 SCRA 441 (2008) (no heavy presumption of
unconstitutionality/substantial government interest) –
a.) Fundamental rights; or Remember there are 2 restrictions on speech. There is:
b.) Equal protection issues but it pertains to
classifications involving race, national origin or 1.) Content-neutral – we apply the intermediate scrutiny
religion test;
2.) Content-based – we apply the strict scrutiny
What is the effect if the court applies the strict scrutiny test? Q: What is the result?
Answer: There is no heavy presumption of unconstitutionality/substantial
government interest – the government has only substantial
In this instance, the court starts with the heavy presumption that governmental interest.
the law is unconstitutional 2. Thus, the government has the burden
of proving that the classification (i) is necessary to achieve a It appears here that from the wording, the act of the government is
compelling State interest, and (ii) is the least restrictive means to presumed to be unconstitutional. But the presumption is not heavy.
protect such interest or the means chosen is narrowly tailored to Secondly, the government must show a substantial not compelling
accomplish the interest. – meaning, an important governmental interest is sought to be
advanced; not compelling because the words there have specific
Explanation: meanings.
1
We’re dealing now with the equal protection clause which we’ll discuss in
When is the rational basis test applied?
a few minutes.
Rational basis test applies to all other subjects not covered by the
first two tests. Lawful subject and Lawful method3. (Applies to
2
You’ll learn in the other branches of the law that acts of Congress are exercise of police power that tend to restrict property right, or other
presumed to be Constitutional. However, the SC now is saying that in rights which are not regarded as fundamental) Generally, we
situations when the acts of Congress affects fundamental rights and the equal
protection clause in some cases, that act will be regarded or presumed as
apply this to property rights.
unconstitutional. TAKE NOTE: Heavy presumption of 3
unconstitutionality. We do that when there is an exercise of police power.
2
20054, No. 11:(2.) Emilio had long suspected that Alvin, his 2012, No. 10. What do you understand by the term "heirarchy
employee, had been passing trade secrets to his competitor, of civil liberties"?
Randy, but he had no proof. One day, Emilio broke open the
desk of Alvin and discovered a letter wherein Randy thanked When we speak about hierarchy of civil liberties, we simply mean
Alvin for having passed on to him vital trade secrets of Emilio. that not all rights are equal to each other. There is what we call as
Enclosed in the letter was a check for P50,000.00 drawn HEIRARCHY and that is what we call as basic human rights are
against the account of Randy and payable to Alvin. Emilio then superior to property rights. That’s the meaning of hierarchy of
dismissed Alvin from his employment. Emilio’s proof of civil liberties.
Alvin’s perfidy are the said letter and check which are objected
to as inadmissible for having been obtained through an illegal 1996, No. 1: Distinguish civil rights from political rights and
search. Alvin filed a suit assailing his dismissal. give an example of each right.
They ask it in another way, but if you’re familiar with the principle *They are actually somewhere buried in another parts of the
and you know how to apply it, you cannot get lost. Constitution.
(b) One of the militant groups, the Amazing Amazonas, Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or
call on all the government-owned and controlled property without due process of law, nor shall any person
corporations (GOCC) to boycott any newspaper, be deprived the equal protection of laws.
radio or TV station that carries the “kinse anyos”
advertisements. They call on all government Not covered as “property”:
nominees in sequestered corporations to block any
advertising funds allocated for any such newspaper,
1. permits and licenses [CM Timber]
radio or TV station. Can the GOCCs and
sequestered corporations validly comply?
2. private employment [Serrano]
This time the answer will be different.
3. public office [COMELEC v. Cruz, 605 SCRA 167
Q: Why? (2009)]
Because GOCCs now are now government entities. Therefore,
they are covered by the BOR. Their act would be in a sense a The one that I would always say is that, if you look at Section 1, it
restriction on the freedom of expression. has 2 major topics (all of which needs to be explained in
detail):
2
*That is the standard way to discuss this. Outline of Sec. 1:
Even the right to life and liberty are not absolute rights because
A. Due Process
they can be subject to limitations. In fact, if there’s a death penalty,
you can be sentenced to death; and therefore, in a sense, the right
to life is not absolute. But you have to understand also that what 1. Procedural
2. Substantive
seems to be absolute, though I don’t want to make that statement
for the moment, is that the right not to be deprived of it will have
due process – that is the one that seems to be absolute. Because B. Equal Protection
of some decisions, I’m thinking that that decision will not be very
safe. I’ll go back to it when I go to Section 14.
WARNING: Sometimes in the bar they ask you, is there a
Remember these items also: violation of due process? That is one question which are actually 2
questions. Sometimes when they ask you is there a violation of
Q: What are not covered by the term property? due process? You will have to answer procedural and
substantive due process because they are really distinct and we
1. permits and licenses [CM Timber] – SC told us that permits need to understand them separately. Sometimes the examiners can
and licenses (for instance permit to operate a cockpit or a lotto be tricky.
outlet), they are not considered property rights because they’re
only privileges, hence they can be withdrawn anytime; you cannot Due Process and Equal Protection
invoke the due process clause generally, because they are not
considered to fall under the term property. Due Process: Procedural vs. Substantive
2. private employment [Serrano] – I think you study this in
labor. When we go to the Serrano decision, if you’re illegally Procedural due process relates to the mode of procedure
which government agencies must follow in the enforcement
dismissed without just cause but no due process was observed,
and application of laws.
you’re entitled to reinstatement and backwages for all the time
when you were out of work. But after the Serrano decision, J.
Carpio stated that “Wait a minute. Private employment is not Substantive due process pertains to the intrinsic validity of
covered by the due process clause.” While you’re entitled to due the law interfering with life, liberty and property.
process before you’re removed, that is because it is provided in
the Labor Code provided in statutes. You have due process, but Exempted from procedural due process:
that does not spring from Section 1 of the BOR. That’s why in the
end, they only give you some kind of a compensation for violation a. rule-making/quasi-legislative power Quezon City PTCA
of the due process clause (P5k, P3k, I forgot the amount). v. Department, 784 SCRA 505 (2016) – Usually an
administrative body exercises both quasi-legislative and
SUMMARY: quasi-judicial power. For instance, the CSC issues some
regulations but if you commit a violation, they can also
It’s not protected by the due process clause. While you’re investigate you and dismiss you. In the exercise of its rule-
entitled to due process, the source there is statutory; not Section making power, we call that quasi-legislative; but when it
1. decides to dismiss you for infraction of some rules, that is
quasi-judicial.
2
Maybe I need to emphasize this also because many entities are PFRB (?), COMELEC, military commission. The point
required to conduct hearings. For instance, fare increases. When simply is that, while the requirement of facts and law
the LTFRB increases taxi fares. They hold hearings. would not be necessary in their decision, they are bound
by this one.
Q: Why is that a requirement?
Not because of the Constitution but because of the rules and the Commentators and usually the SC would summarize it. There are 2
law creating them requires that body to call hearings. But It’s not a important requirements when it comes to due process in admin
requirement of the Constitution. proceedings. The twin requirements of due process are:
I don’t want to deal with the details here, but sometimes they still
That is partly answered by the Ang Tibay decision. This is an
ask it in the bar in the form of problems. Take note of the elements admin body. Due process in admin bodies, as impliedly
of due process in admin. proceedings. The SC still quotes this mentioned in Ang Tibay, does not require court trial-type
every now and then. But this is actually about a 70-year old case proceedings. While you are entitled to notice and hearing, it
decided by J. Laurel. You have to be very familiar with the need not be in the form of direct and cross-examination.
elements of due process in admin. proceedings. Procedural due Because you’re now 4th yr, you know, for instance, that in labor
process can take on many forms in different situations. But the cases (maybe some of you had worked with the legal aid), you
most common way that it can come out is in admin. proceedings. simply submit your affidavits and position papers. That serves
But I will not go into the details here. as due process in admin proceedings. No need of trial-type
proceedings.
Section 1: Procedural Due Process
FT:
Due Process in Administrative Proceedings:
6. The board or body should, in all controversial Somebody was head of an entity and he decided the case
questions, render its decision in such a manner that against A. Later on, he was promoted to the CSC. In the
the parties to the proceeding can know the various Commission, there are 3 people now which decide cases. That
issues involved and the reason for the decision – try case which he decided while chair of the Marriage System and
to relate this with Consti 1. In Consti 1 (in the provision Protection Board, was appealed to the CSC. He joined the 2
of the judiciary), the provision is saying that the decision others and rendered a decision.
should contain the facts and the law. But we have a
decision of the SC saying that it does not apply to the Held:
2
The SC nullified the decision because the SC stated that you (2) It leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in
cannot be objective. It will violate due process if your own carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary
decision is on appeal before you. The proper thing to do is flexing of the Government muscle
inhibit yourself. Obviously the SC does not mind that it is a
collegiate body; because if it’s a collegiate body, there are 3 *That is the big challenge involving the Anti-Terror Law.
people who will decide. But the SC would have none of it.
Last week, the Chief of the AFP was saying that he will regulate
the social media through the Anti-Terror Law. I think many
FT:
Senators protested saying that is not included. Then he made
another statement saying that, “I will only regulate not the media
users, but only the platform”. that is a classic example of it
leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its
I don’t know if it’s this class, but somebody asked me – Q: What provisions and become an arbitrary flexing of government
about the problem involving the HRET? muscle because they themselves do not know whether it’s covered
or not covered. in fact, even prosecutors will have unbridled
Because remember, there are 3 representatives sitting in the HRET
discretion to charge you or not. Judges also will have unbridled
and in the SET. In the case raised, they will all go back to the SC
discretion whether to convict you or not, because of the vagueness
and they will sit there also and they will decide the case which is
of the law. So that is what we mean by these 2 statements given by
being raised on certiorari before the SC.
the Court on what is a vague statute.
Q: Can that be done?
2010, XIV
The SC actually stated that, no problem. It is rather strange.
ABC operates an industrial waste processing plant within
Q: Why? Laoag City. Occasionally, whenever fluid substances are
released through a nearby creek, obnoxious odor is emitted
Because how can you expect them to change their mind when in causing dizziness among residents in Barangay La Paz. On
the 1st place, they have already voted in a particular way when complaint of the Punong Barangay, the City Mayor wrote ABC
they were still with the HRET. But that is an exception. demanding that it abate the nuisance. This was ignored. An
invitation to attend a hearing called by the Sangguniang
Q: What is the reason given by the SC? Panlungsod was also declined by the president of ABC. The
city government thereupon issued a cease and desist order to
The framers of the Constitution must have been aware that this stop the operations of the plant, prompting ABC to file a
will happen – that the 3 justices will also go back to the SC and petition for injunction before the Regional Trial Court,
probably, more likely than not, the decision will be appealed to arguing that the city government did not have any power to
them. Therefore, they do not allowed inhibitions there. That’s the abate the alleged nuisance. Decide with reasons. (3%)
only 1 exception that I know from jurisprudence.
The 1st thing that we need to understand here is that, is it a
2. Publication of Laws – I already told you that we cannot do nuisance per se or a nuisance per accidens? I’m thinking that it
away with publication, as decided in Tanada, because that is a might not really be per se because it’s not a nuisance at all times
requirement of PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS. How can we and at all conditions. Upon further analysis, there might be a 2 nd
expect somebody to know the law? In fact, it makes no sense to item here yet because you can answer it by ignoring that one by
presume that people know the law if that law has not been simply saying that, this is actually not due process in judicial
published. proceedings; but this is admin in nature. If it is admin in nature,
there is no requirement of trial-type proceedings because take
3. Vague Laws – This is VERY IMPORTANT! I’ll go back to
note here, an invitation to attend a hearing called by the
this when we go to freedom of expression. That is the main
Sangguniang Panglungsod, was also declined by the President.
challenge involving the Ant-Terror Law now.
The invitation of the mayor was also ignored. TAKE NOTE:
Q: What is a vague law? They were given an opportunity to explain their side but they did
not take advantage of it. In many decisions of the SC, they SC
"A statute or act suffers from the defect of vagueness when it lacks would say that what is required is only an opportunity to defend
comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must yourself. You’re notified; you’re given an opportunity, but they
necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. It is never attended the hearing. Hence, they waived their right to
repugnant to the Constitution in two (2) respects: (1) it violates due explain their side. If I’m the judge there, I will not grant an
process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted injunction. There’s no need of a trial-type proceeding; this is only
by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves law an admin matter.
enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and
becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle [SPARK This is the one that I told you that from time to time they still ask
v. Quezon City, 835 SCRA 350 (2017).] it:
(1) It violates due process for failure to accord persons, 77. Procedural due process in administrative proceedings
especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the
A. requires the tribunal to consider the evidence presented.
conduct to avoid – You don’t know what not to do if
the law is vague. B. allows the losing party to file a motion for reconsideration.
2
C. requires hearing the parties on oral argument. if an act violates freedom of speech, we do not apply
this test; because most cases that we’ll deal with as we
D. permits the parties to file memoranda. move, will apply to restrictions on property rights.
That’s why we used the rational basis test which is
Discussion: very easy to satisfy.
If you know the Ang Tibay decision, you will know that A will be It has 2 components:
the correct answer.
1.) That the interest of the public generally as
B. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS distinguished from those of a particular class
requires such interference;
Is the law reasonable or is it an undue interference on
life, liberty or property? – Sometimes the examiner will ask, Is
there a violation of due process? It is sometimes equivalent to 2.) That the means are reasonably necessary for the
asking the question, Is it a valid exercise of police power? They accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly
are actually interchangeable because once there is no valid oppressive upon individuals. (US VS. TORIBIO)
exercise of police power, more likely than not, there is also a
violation of substantive due process. TIP: The questions can be Outline:
one and the same; but they are all about substantive due process.
For that reason, we have to understand the meaning of police 1. Lawful subject – in the old days, I simply ask my
power. students – Q: Does it fall under health, morals,
public safety, education, welfare? That is the meaning
POLICE POWER: of lawful subject.
The power of the government to prescribe regulations to 2. Lawful method – if you try to analyze it carefully,
promote health, morals, education, good order or safety and the appears to be made up of 2 parts:
general welfare of the people.
a. Rational relation between method and purpose
[Ynot], Laguio] the method chosen by the law
and the purpose of the law.
I usually emphasize to my students the items that promote:
(HMEGS) This is a matter of logic which is very easy to satisfy.
Very few cases in the last 100 years have violated this
Health;
test. I usually cite to you Ynot because that is classic.
Morals;
That is an example when the law failed the test.
Education;
Good order; Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 148 SCRA 659, No.
Safety and general welfare L-74457 March 20, 1987
In old cases, that used to be the standard because the exercise of
the power of the government does not fall under any, that will no Facts:
longer be a valid exercise of police power. But over the years,
some cases actually come up where the SC would day that it’s a This was the PD issued by Marcos prohibiting the inter-
valid exercise of police power even if they don’t really fall under provincial transfer of carabaos. According to him, to preserve
the category. But anyway just take note on those on what are the the carabaos, do not move it from one province to another
valid purposes of the exercise of police power. without a permit.
Tests for Valid Exercise of Police Power: Is the law Unconstitutional because it failed the test. We have no problem
reasonable? (Rational Basis Test] because it has a lawful subject – to protect the carabao because
it’s very important to the economy, being an agricultural
1. That the interest of the public generally as country. But the SC stated that, wait a minute, if you want to
distinguished from those of a particular class preserve the carabao and your method is to prohibit the
requires such interference. movement from one province to another, there seems to be no
logic because carabaos can be killed without moving it from
2. That the means are reasonably necessary for the one province to another. That’s why it nullified the PD.
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly
oppressive upon individuals. (US VS. I used to tell my students, because Marcos was a very rational
TORIBIO) man. We cannot doubt his brilliance, but he made that error;
because I’m thinking, if I examine it, I was thinking that
Marcos passed that decree, but it was removed in the whereas
Remember the 3 tests I’ve mentioned: clauses or the final copy of the whereas clauses, to prevent the
spread of foot-and-mouth disease, which is very logical. Right
1.) The strict scrutiny; now, I think, swine fever, will prohibit the transfer of one swine
2.) The intermediate scrutiny; and from one place to another. That will actually prevent the
3.) The rational basis test – normally we apply this only spread of the disease; but the SC saw that aspect only.
when it involves a violation of property rights. Because
2
FT: because motels can be used for
innocent pruposes]
Same; Same; The ban on slaughter of carabaos is directly
related to public welfare.—In the light of the tests mentioned 3. Fernando v. St. Scholastica’s College, 693 SCRA
above, we hold with the Toribio Case that the carabao, as the 141 (2013) [Beautification?] –if it permanently
poor man's tractor, so to speak, has a direct relevance to the divests owner of use of his property
public welfare and so is a lawful subject of Executive Order
No. 626. The method chosen in the basic measure is also 4. Carlos Superdrug v. DSWD, Southern Luzon
reasonably necessary for the purpose sought to be achieved and Drug v. DSWD, (2017); Manila Memorial v.
not unduly oppressive upon individuals, again following the Secretary, (2013) – 20% discount
above-cited doctrine. There is no doubt that by banning the
slaughter of these animals except where they are at least seven
years old if male and eleven years old if female upon issuance 5. Planters v. Fertiphil (fertilizer tax to make a
of the necessary permit, the executive order will be conserving pricate corporation viable)
those still fit for farm work or breeding and preventing their
improvident depletion. 6. Mosqueda v. Pilipino Banana Growers, 800
SCRA 313 (2016) (aerial to truck-mounted
Same; Same; The ban on the transportation of carabaos from spraying in 3 months/too broad for not making
one province to another (E.O. 626-A), their confiscation and distinctions between pesticide and fertilizers]
disposal without a prior court hearing is violative of due (under-inclusive)
process for lack of reasonable connection between the means
employed and the purpose to be achieved and for being
confiscatory.—But while conceding that the amendatory Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc.
measure has the same lawful subject as the original executive vs. City Mayor of Manila, 21 SCRA 449, No. L-24693
order, we cannot say with equal certainty that it complies with October 23, 1967
the second requirement, viz., that there be a lawful method. We
note that to strengthen the original measure, Executive Order
No. 626-A imposes an absolute ban not on the slaughter of the
carabaos but on their movement, providing that "no carabao Held:
regardless of age, sex, physical condition or purpose (sic) and
no carabeef shall be transported from one province to another." In the old days, during our time, the classic case was Ermita v.
The object of the prohibition escapes us. The reasonable Malate, where the SC declared as unconstitutional an
connection between the means employed and the purpose ordinance prohibiting short-time in motels. Prohibiting the use
sought to be achieved by the questioned measure is missing. of motel rooms in a short-time basis will be constitutional
because that is intended to protect morals.
It happened in Laguio, but I will not emphasize that anymore. But
you have to remember that requirement there. FT:
b. Means chosen not unduly oppressive of another Constitutional law; Absence of injury to rights by operation
right I want to emphasize this. When Congress of statute or ordinance,—Unless a person is injuriously
passes a law or if an LGU passes an ordinance, in affected in any of his constitutional rights by the operation of
almost all cases, it always affects another right; but statute or ordinance, he has no standing.
that does not mean that the law will be
unconstitutional, because the requirement is that, it will Same; Freedom of contract not a bar to police power
only be unconstitutional if the effect on the other right measures.—In this jurisdiction, the liberty to contract has
is unduly oppressive. TAKE NOTE OF THE never stood in the way of the enactment of police power
WORD: Unduly. We all know that. If Congress measures when called for by circumstances (except in the
passes the Family Code, you cannot marry 5 times Pomar case, 46 Phil. 440). The same is true in the United
because you can only marry once. When it passes the States, where such concept has definitely fallen from its
RPC, you cannot do a lot of things anymore. In the previously high state under the impact of the Nebbia (291 US
end, it restricts our ability to act. The point only is that, 502), West Coast Hotel Co. (300 US 379), and Olsen (313 US
1305) decisions. Same; Deprivation of property allowed
it should not be unduly oppressive. That is the one that
provided due process is observed.—One could, consistently
the Court will declare unconstitutional.
with the fundamental law, be deprived of his property as long
as due process is observed.
Cases:
2
arrived at by the Court with controlling constitutional law the constitutional limitations thereon; and is subject to the
principles. The policy of laissez faire has to some extent given limitation that its exercise must be reasonable and for the
way to the assumption by the government of the right of public good.—The police power of the City Council, however
intervention even in contractual relations affected with public broad and far-reaching, is subordinate to the constitutional
interest. The state in order to promote the general welfare may limitations thereon; and is subject to the limitation that its
interfere with personal liberty, with property, and with business exercise must be reasonable and for the public good. In the case
and occupations. Persons and property may be subjected to all at bar, the enactment of the Ordinance was an invalid exercise
kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general of delegated power as it is unconstitutional and repugnant to
comfort, health, and prosperity of the state. To this fundamental general laws.
aim of our Government, the rights of the individual are
subordinated. The mere fact that some individuals in the Same; Same; Same; Same; Due Process; Procedural Due
community may be deprived of their present business or a Process and Substantive Due Process Distinguished.—
particular mode of earning a living cannot prevent the exercise Procedural due process, as the phrase implies, refers to the
of police power. Person licensed to pursue occupations which procedures that the government must follow before it deprives
may in the public need and interest be affected by the exercise a person of life, liberty, or property. Classic procedural due
of the police power embark in those occupations subject to the process issues are concerned with what kind of notice and what
disadvantages which may result from the legal exercise of that form of hearing the government must provide when it takes a
power. particular action. Substantive due process, as that phrase
connotes, asks whether the government has an adequate reason
for taking away a person’s life, liberty, or property. In other
However, after that, we have the case of: (NOTE: In these cases, words, substantive due process looks to whether there is a
the SC changed its mind) sufficient justification for the government’s action.
City of Manila vs. Laguio, Jr., 455 SCRA 308, G.R. No.
118127 April 12, 2005 Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The police power granted
to local government units must always be exercised with
utmost observance of the rights of the people to due process
Held: and equal protection of the law; Due process requires the
intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of
It is an undue restraint on a business and the right of patrons the person to his life, liberty and property.— The police
this is 3rd party standing. The patrons who will never bother power granted to local government units must always be
to file a case in court because the owners were the ones who exercised with utmost observance of the rights of the people to
filed a case. due process and equal protection of the law. Such power cannot
be exercised whimsically, arbitrarily or despotically as its
exercise is subject to a qualification, limitation or restriction
FT:
demanded by the respect and regard due to the prescription of
the fundamental law, particularly those forming part of the Bill
Constitutional Law; Ordinances; For an ordinance to be of Rights. Individual rights, it bears emphasis, may be
valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the adversely affected only to the extent that may fairly be required
local government unit to enact and must be passed by the legitimate demands of public interest or public welfare.
according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also Due process requires the intrinsic validity of the law in
conform to substantive requirements.—The tests of a valid interfering with the rights of the person to his life, liberty and
ordinance are well established. A long line of decisions has property.
held that for an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within
the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; A reasonable relation
must be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law, it
must exist between the purposes of the police measure and
must also conform to the following substantive requirements:
the means employed for its accomplishment, for even under
(1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (2)
the guise of protecting the public interest, personal rights
must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or
and those pertaining to private property will not be
discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5)
permitted to be arbitrarily invaded.—To successfully invoke
must be general and consistent with public policy; and (6) must
the exercise of police power as the rationale for the enactment
not be unreasonable.
of the Ordinance, and to free it from the imputation of
constitutional infirmity, not only must it appear that the
Same; Same; Local Governments; Police Power; Local interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of
government units exercise police power through their a particular class, require an interference with private rights,
respective legislative bodies, in this case, the sangguniang but the means adopted must be reasonably necessary for the
panlungsod or the city coun-cil.—Local government units accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon
exercise police power through their respective legislative individuals. It must be evident that no other alternative for the
bodies; in this case, the sangguniang panlung-sod or the city accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private rights
council. The Code empowers the legislative bodies to “enact can work. A reasonable relation must exist between the
ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the purposes of the police measure and the means employed for its
general welfare of the province/city/municipality and its accomplishment, for even under the guise of protecting the
inhabitants pursuant to Section 16 of the Code and in the proper public interest, personal rights and those pertaining to private
exercise of the corporate powers of the province/city/ property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded.
municipality provided under the Code. The inquiry in this Lacking a concurrence of these two requisites, the police
Petition is concerned with the validity of the exercise of such measure shall be struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into
delegated power. private rights—a violation of the due process clause.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The police power of the City Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; An ordinance which
Council, however broad and far-reaching, is subordinate to
2
permanently restricts the use of property that it can not be G.R. No. 122846 January 20, 2009
used for any reasonable purpose goes beyond regulation
and must be recognized as a taking of the property without Held:
just compensation.—The Ordinance is unreasonable and
oppressive as it substantially divests the respondent of the
beneficial use of its property. The Ordinance in Section 1 TAKE NOTE BECAUSE IT’S REALLY VERY RARE:
thereof forbids the running of the enumerated businesses in the There is no rational relation between the purpose of the law (to
Ermita-Malate area and in Section 3 instructs its promote morals) and the method chosen (to prohibit short-
own-ers/operators to wind up business operations or to transfer times). Because according to the Court, motels can be used also
outside the area or convert said businesses into allowed for innocent purposes. That is the reasoning that it used
businesses. An ordinance which permanently restricts the use
of property that it can not be used for any reasonable purpose FT:
goes beyond regulation and must be recognized as a taking of
the property without just compensation. It is intrusive and
Same; Same; Judicial Review; Words and Phrases; “Strict
violative of the private property rights of individuals.
Scrutiny,” “Rational Basis,” and, “Intermediate Review,”
Explained.—The general test of the validity of an ordinance on
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The directive to “wind up substantive due process grounds is best tested when assessed
business operations” amounts to a closure of the with the evolved footnote 4 test laid down by the U.S. Supreme
establishment, a permanent deprivation of property, and is Court in U.S. v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144 (1938).
practically confiscatory.— The Ordinance gives the owners Footnote 4 of the Carolene Products case acknowledged that
and operators of the “prohibited” establishments three (3) the judiciary would defer to the legislature unless there is a
months from its approval within which to “wind up business discrimination against a “discrete and insular” minority or
operations or to transfer to any place outside of the Ermita- infringement of a “fundamental right.” Consequently, two
Malate area or convert said businesses to other kinds of standards of judicial review were established: strict scrutiny for
business allowable within the area.” The directive to “wind up laws dealing with freedom of the mind or restricting the
business operations” amounts to a closure of the establishment, political process, and the rational basis standard of review for
a permanent deprivation of property, and is practically economic legislation. A third standard, denominated as
confiscatory. Unless the owner converts his establishment to heightened or immediate scrutiny, was later adopted by the
accommodate an “allowed” business, the structure which U.S. Supreme Court for evaluating classifications based on
housed the previous business will be left empty and gathering gender and legitimacy. Immediate scrutiny was adopted by the
dust. U.S. Supreme Court in Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976),
after the Court declined to do so in Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Private property which is (1971). While the test may have first been articulated in equal
not noxious nor intended for noxious purposes may not, by protection analysis, it has in the United States since been
zoning, be destroyed without compensation.—Petitioners applied in all substantive due process cases as well. We
cannot take refuge in classifying the measure as a zoning ourselves have often applied the rational basis test mainly in
ordinance. A zoning ordinance, although a valid exercise of analysis of equal protection challenges. Using the rational basis
police power, which limits a “wholesome” property to a use examination, laws or ordinances are upheld if they rationally
which can not reasonably be made of it constitutes the taking of further a legitimate governmental interest. Under intermediate
such property without just compensation. Private property review, governmental interest is extensively examined and the
which is not noxious nor intended for noxious purposes may availability of less restrictive measures is considered. Applying
not, by zoning, be destroyed without compensation. Such strict scrutiny, the focus is on the presence of compelling,
principle finds no support in the principles of justice as we rather than substantial, governmental interest and on the
know them. The police powers of local government units which absence of less restrictive means for achieving that interest. In
have always received broad and liberal interpretation cannot be terms of judicial review of statutes or ordinances, strict scrutiny
stretched to cover this particular taking. refers to the standard for determining the quality and the
amount of governmental interest brought to justify the
regulation of fundamental freedoms. Strict scrutiny is used
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Petitioners cannot today to test the validity of laws dealing with the regulation of
therefore order the closure of the enumerated speech, gender, or race as well as other fundamental rights as
establishments without infringing the due process clause.— expansion from its earlier applications to equal protection. The
The Ordinance does not specify the standards to ascertain United States Supreme Court has expanded the scope of strict
which establishments “tend to disturb the community,” “annoy scrutiny to protect fundamental rights such as suffrage, judicial
the inhabitants,” and “adversely affect the social and moral access and interstate travel.
welfare of the community.” The cited case supports the
nullification of the Ordinance for lack of comprehensible
standards to guide the law enforcers in carrying out its Same; Same; Liberty; Liberty, as integrally incorporated as
provisions. Petitioners cannot therefore order the closure of the a fundamental right in the Constitution, is not a Ten
enumerated establishments without infringing the due process Commandments-style enumeration of what may or what
clause. These lawful establishments may be regulated, but not may not be done, but rather an atmosphere of freedom
prevented from carrying on their business. This is a sweeping where the people do not feel labored under a Big Brother
exercise of police power that is a result of a lack of imagination presence as they interact with each other, their society and
on the part of the City Council and which amounts to an nature, in a manner innately understood by them as
interference into personal and private rights which the Court inherent, without doing harm or injury to others.—One
will not countenance. In this regard, we take a resolute stand to might say that the infringed rights of these customers were are
uphold the constitutional guarantee of the right to liberty and trivial since they seem shorn of political consequence.
property. Concededly, these are not the sort of cherished rights that,
when proscribed, would impel the people to tear up their
cedulas. Still, the Bill of Rights does not shelter gravitas alone.
White Light Corporation vs City of Manila, 576 SCRA 416, Indeed, it is those “trivial” yet fundamental freedoms—which
2
the people reflexively exercise any day without the impairing enforcement of existing laws and regulations penalizing
awareness of their constitutional consequence—that accurately prostitution and drug use. These measures would have minimal
reflect the degree of liberty enjoyed by the people. Liberty, as intrusion on the businesses of the petitioners and other
integrally incorporated as a fundamental right in the legitimate merchants. Further, it is apparent that the Ordinance
Constitution, is not a Ten Commandments-style enumeration of can easily be circumvented by merely paying the whole day
what may or what may not be done; but rather an atmosphere rate without any hindrance to those engaged in illicit activities.
of freedom where the people do not feel labored under a Big Moreover, drug dealers and prostitutes can in fact collect “wash
Brother presence as they interact with each other, their society rates” from their clientele by charging their customers a portion
and nature, in a manner innately understood by them as of the rent for motel rooms and even apartments.
inherent, without doing harm or injury to others.
Same; Same; Individual rights may be adversely affected
Same; Same; Police Power; A reasonable relation must only to the extent that may fairly be required by the
exist between the purposes of the police power measure and legitimate demands of public interest or public welfare—
the means employed for its accomplishment, for even under the State is a leviathan that must be restrained from
the guise of protecting the public interest, personal rights needlessly intruding into the lives of its citizens.—We
and those pertaining to private property will not be reiterate that individual rights may be adversely affected only
permitted to be arbitrarily invaded.—That the Ordinance to the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate
prevents the lawful uses of a wash rate depriving patrons of a demands of public interest or public welfare. The State is a
product and the petitioners of lucrative business ties in with leviathan that must be restrained from needlessly intruding into
another constitutional requisite for the legitimacy of the the lives of its citizens. However well-intentioned the
Ordinance as a police power measure. It must appear that the Ordinance may be, it is in effect an arbitrary and whimsical
interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of intrusion into the rights of the establishments as well as their
a particular class, require an interference with private rights and patrons. The Ordinance needlessly restrains the operation of the
the means must be reasonably necessary for the businesses of the petitioners as well as restricting the rights of
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive of their patrons without sufficient justification. The Ordinance
private rights. It must also be evident that no other alternative rashly equates wash rates and renting out a room more than
for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private twice a day with immorality without accommodating innocuous
rights can work. More importantly, a reasonable relation must intentions. The promotion of public welfare and a sense of
exist between the purposes of the measure and the means morality among citizens deserves the full endorsement of the
employed for its accomplishment, for even under the guise of judiciary provided that such measures do not trample rights this
protecting the public interest, personal rights and those Court is sworn to protect. The notion that the promotion of
pertaining to private property will not be permitted to be public morality is a function of the State is as old as Aristotle.
arbitrarily invaded. Lacking a concurrence of these requisites, The advancement of moral relativism as a school of philosophy
the police measure shall be struck down as an arbitrary does not de-legitimize the role of morality in law, even if it
intrusion into private rights. As held in Morfe v. Mutuc, 22 may foster wider debate on which particular behavior to
SCRA 424 (1968), the exercise of police power is subject to penalize. It is conceivable that a society with relatively little
judicial review when life, liberty or property is affected. shared morality among its citizens could be functional so long
However, this is not in any way meant to take it away from the as the pursuit of sharply variant moral perspectives yields an
vastness of State police power whose exercise enjoys the adequate accommodation of different interests.
presumption of validity.
Same; Same; Our democracy is distinguished from non-free
Municipal Corporations; Police Power; Urban decay is a societies not with any more extensive elaboration on our
fact of mega cities such as Manila, and vice is a common part of what is moral and immoral, but from our
problem confronted by the modern metropolis wherever in recognition that the individual liberty to make the choices
the world—the solution to such perceived decay is not to in our lives is innate, and protected by the State.—The oft-
prevent legitimate businesses from offering a legitimate quoted American maxim that “you cannot legislate morality” is
product, rather, cities revive themselves by offering ultimately illegitimate as a matter of law, since as explained by
incentives for new businesses to sprout up thus attracting Calabresi, that phrase is more accurately interpreted as meaning
the dynamism of individuals that would bring a new that efforts to legislate morality will fail if they are widely at
grandeur to Manila.—The Court has professed its deep variance with public attitudes about right and wrong. Our penal
sentiment and tenderness of the Ermita-Malate area, its laws, for one, are founded on age-old moral traditions, and as
longtime home, and it is skeptical of those who wish to depict long as there are widely accepted distinctions between right and
our capital city—the Pearl of the Orient—as a modern-day wrong, they will remain so oriented. Yet the continuing
Sodom or Gomorrah for the Third World set. Those still progression of the human story has seen not only the
steeped in Nick Joaquin-dreams of the grandeur of Old Manila acceptance of the right-wrong distinction, but also the advent of
will have to accept that Manila like all evolving big cities, will fundamental liberties as the key to the enjoyment of life to the
have its problems. Urban decay is a fact of mega cities such as fullest. Our democracy is distinguished from non-free societies
Manila, and vice is a common problem confronted by the not with any more extensive elaboration on our part of what is
modern metropolis wherever in the world. The solution to such moral and immoral, but from our recognition that the individual
perceived decay is not to prevent legitimate businesses from liberty to make the choices in our lives is innate, and protected
offering a legitimate product. Rather, cities revive themselves by the State. Independent and fair-minded judges themselves
by offering incentives for new businesses to sprout up thus are under a moral duty to uphold the Constitution as the
attracting the dynamism of individuals that would bring a new embodiment of the rule of law, by reason of their expression of
grandeur to Manila. The behavior which the Ordinance seeks to consent to do so when they take the oath of office, and because
curtail is in fact already prohibited and could in fact be they are entrusted by the people to uphold the law.
diminished simply by applying existing laws. Less intrusive
measures such as curbing the proliferation of prostitutes and
drug dealers through active police work would be more Fernando vs. St. Scholastica's College, 693 SCRA 141, G.R.
effective in easing the situation. So would the strict No. 161107 March 12, 2013
2
Facts:
This is another angle/aspect in the exercise of the PP. in fact,
The ordinance here required that if you put up a fence, you there are already 3 cases now.
should give a margin to the streets. Meaning, you do not put it
in the boundary on a private property and the state. Give it Facts:
several meters away from the boundary. Here, you build your
fence, for instance, 10m or 5m away from your boundary. That
means that you can never use anymore that portion as it will be We now have many laws. For instance, giving 20% discounts
used as parking lots. It will look beautiful definitely. to senior citizens; giving 20% discount to people with
disability. I was thinking when the law was still new and I was
still teaching in Ateneo, I discuss this with my students. I was
Issue: Can beautification be a valid purpose for the exercise thinking that that should be regarded as unconstitutional. Some
of police power? justices had agreed (very few justices). But the majority agreed
that it’s constitutional. Because it seems to me that the gov’t
Held: now is simply passing the burden to the private sector – “You
own a drug store, give 20% discount.” “You own a restaurant,
The SC annulled it because the owner will be deprived of the give 20% discount.” While they’re entitled to a tax credit, the
use of his property. That’s one aspect of the case, although it tax credit is very minimal. It will not allow you a full recovery
has many aspects. of what you lost as a result of the discount.
That is rarely addressed by the SC. Because take note, you Held:
have morals, education; no aesthetics there. But recently the
SC stated that, apparently beautification is a valid exercise of This is a valid exercise of police power. In fact, if you try to
police power, but it will not be permitted if it will permanently look at it, it is in a sense a different kind of police power
divest the owner of the use of his property. Because I think because it’s not really restricting the use of your property.
some municipalities require that your fences will be painted There are so many ordinances that limits the use of property.
green, all that. Your tricycles will be painted yellow. Before I But the 20% discount is passing the buck to the private sector.
really doubted if that can be valid. Before, beautification has But the Court considered it (at least some justices or majority
never been recognized by the SC as a valid exercise of police of the justices) that this is some kind of limitation on prices.
power. But the SC seems to imply now that it’s ok for as long For instance, there are certain goods where the gov’t puts a
as the owner is not permanently divested of the use of his price limit. Like certain drugs – they are the subject of certain
property. price limitations. The SC would still consider that as a valid
exercise of police power.
FT:
FT:
Constitutional Law; Ordinances; Right to Property; Right
to Privacy; Compelling the respondents to construct their
fence in accordance with the assailed ordinance is, thus, a
clear encroachment on their right to property, which
necessarily includes their right to decide how best to protect Planters v. Fertiphil (fertilizer tax to make a pricate
their property; It also appears that requiring the exposure corporation viable)
of their property via a see-thru fence is violative of their
right to privacy.—Compelling the respondents to construct
their fence in accordance with the assailed ordinance is, thus, a Facts:
clear encroachment on their right to property, which necessarily
includes their right to decide how best to protect their property. This one is a decree issued by Marcos but only a couple of
It also appears that requiring the exposure of their property via years ago declared by the SC as unconstitutional because it
a see-thru fence is violative of their right to privacy, imposes a 10 centavo tax for every bag of fertilizer to make a
considering that the residence of the Benedictine nuns is also private corporation viable.
located within the property. The right to privacy has long been
considered a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution
Held:
that must be protected from intrusion or constraint. The right to
privacy is essentially the right to be let alone, as governmental
powers should stop short of certain intrusions into the personal That is not a valid exercise of police power because that is in
life of its citizens. It is inherent in the concept of liberty, favor of a private corporation. The money collected will be
enshrined in the Bill of Rights (Article III) in Sections 1, 2, given to a private corporation (a crony of Marcos) to ensure the
3(1), 6, 8, and 17, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. The existence of the corporation. That’s why the SC nullified it.
enforcement of Section 3.1 would, therefore, result in an undue
interference with the respondents’ rights to property and FT:
privacy. Section 3.1 of Ordinance No. 192 is, thus, also invalid
and cannot be enforced against the respondents.
Same; Same; Same; Police Power; The State, in promoting
the health and welfare of a special group of citizens, can
Carlos Superdrug v. DSWD, Southern Luzon Drug v. impose upon private establishments the burden of partly
DSWD, (2017); Manila Memorial v. Secretary, (2013) – subsidizing a government program.—This raises the question
20% discount of whether the State, in promoting the health and welfare of a
special group of citizens, can impose upon private
2
establishments the burden of partly subsidizing a government dimension. While Article XIII of the Constitution provides the
program. The Court believes so. The Senior Citizens Act was precept for the protection of property, various laws and
enacted primarily to maximize the contribution of senior jurisprudence, particularly on agrarian reform and the
citizens to nation-building, and to grant benefits and privileges regulation of contracts and public utilities, continuously serve
to them for their improvement and well-being as the State as a reminder that the right to property can be relinquished
considers them an integral part of our society. upon the command of the State for the promotion of public
good.
Same; Same; Same; Same; R.A. No. 9257 is a legitimate
exercise of police power which, similar to the power of Same; Same; Same; Same; Without sufficient proof that
eminent domain, has general welfare for its object; When Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 9257 is arbitrary, and that the
the conditions so demand as determined by the legislature, continued implementation of the same would be
property rights must bow to the primacy of police power unconscionably detrimental to petitioners, the Court will
because property rights, though sheltered by due process, refrain from quashing a legislative act.—The success of the
must yield to general welfare; Police power as an attribute senior citizens program rests largely on the support imparted by
to promote the common good would be diluted considerably petitioners and the other private establishments concerned. This
if on the mere plea of property owners that they will suffer being the case, the means employed in invoking the active
loss of earnings and capital, a questioned provision is participation of the private sector, in order to achieve the
invalidated.—The law is a legitimate exercise of police power purpose or objective of the law, is reasonably and directly
which, similar to the power of eminent domain, has general related. Without sufficient proof that Section 4(a) of R.A. No.
welfare for its object. Police power is not capable of an exact 9257 is arbitrary, and that the continued implementation of the
definition, but has been purposely veiled in general terms to same would be unconscionably detrimental to petitioners, the
underscore its comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and Court will refrain from quashing a legislative act.
provide enough room for an efficient and flexible response to
conditions and circumstances, thus assuring the greatest
benefits. Accordingly, it has been described as “the most Mosqueda v. Pilipino Banana Growers, 800 SCRA 313
essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers, extending (2016) (aerial to truck-mounted spraying in 3 months/too
as it does to all the great public needs.” It is “[t]he power broad for not making distinctions between pesticide and
vested in the legislature by the constitution to make, ordain, fertilizers] (under-inclusive)
and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws,
statutes, and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not
repugnant to the constitution, as they shall judge to be for the
good and welfare of the commonwealth, and of the subjects of
the same.” For this reason, when the conditions so demand as This is a Davao case which I was a little bit disappointed by
determined by the legislature, property rights must bow to the the decision because I was hoping that it will be sustained by
primacy of police power because property rights, though the SC.
sheltered by due process, must yield to general welfare. Police
power as an attribute to promote the common good would be
Facts:
diluted considerably if on the mere plea of petitioners that they
will suffer loss of earnings and capital, the questioned
provision is invalidated. Moreover, in the absence of evidence Because of the problem now brought about by the spraying of
demonstrating the alleged confiscatory effect of the provision chemicals by banana companies, the city of Davao passed an
in question, there is no basis for its nullification in view of the ordinance which prohibited aerial spraying and it required the
presumption of validity which every law has in its favor. banana growers to transfer or to truck mountain (?) spraying in
3 mos.
Same; Same; Same; Same; It is unfair for drugstore owners
to criticize the law because they cannot raise the prices of Held:
their medicines given the cutthroat nature of the players in
the industry.—It is unfair for petitioners to criticize the law The SC declared it unconstitutional. Justice Leonen came out
because they cannot raise the prices of their medicines given with a good explanation. The point simply, according to the SC
the cutthroat nature of the players in the industry. It is a is that, the period of 3 months given to the banana planters is
business decision on the part of petitioners to peg the mark-up too short to move from aerial spraying to truck-mountain
at 5%. Selling the medicines below acquisition cost, as alleged spraying. It’s too short that in the end, it’s almost confiscatory.
by petitioners, is merely a result of this decision. Inasmuch as That cannot easily shirt to that. Si it’s possible that on that
pricing is a property right, petitioners cannot reproach the law argument alone that is an ordinance is re-enacted and made it
for being oppressive, simply because they cannot afford to raise one year, it may be able to satisfy the complains of the justices.
their prices for fear of losing their customers to competition.
The 2nd reason given by the SC is this. According to the SC, the
Same; Same; Same; Same; While the Constitution protects ordinance is overbroad because it did not make any distinction
property rights, petitioners must accept the realities of between the use of pesticide and the use of fertilizer for
business and the State, in the exercise of police power, can spraying.
intervene in the operations of a business which may result
in an impairment of property rights in the process.—The
Court is not oblivious of the retail side of the pharmaceutical Q: Why?
industry and the competitive pricing component of the
business. While the Constitution protects property rights, The use of pesticide actually, can be very dangerous. It will fall
petitioners must accept the realities of business and the State, in on people because sometimes of the direction of the air on your
the exercise of police power, can intervene in the operations of gardens and your vegetables will be harmed. But the SC said
a business which may result in an impairment of property rights that, why do you include the aerial spraying with the use of
in the process. Moreover, the right to property has a social fertilizers? So that is also one reason why it declared it as
2
unconstitutional. But in the end, the one that is insurmountable Among others, it prohibited advertising signs in residential
is suppose we come up with an ordinance saying that, “Ok we zones, set minimum distances from property lines abutting the
will allow fertilizer; only pesticide will be prohibited.” That road-right of way and designated certain areas of the city as
might satisfy the Court. But the other reason given, I think by “regulated areas” to preserve the natural view of Davao River,
Justice Bersamin was this: The city has no authority to regulate Mt. Apo and Samal Island. Is the Ordinance a valid exercise of
the spraying of the use of pesticide and fertilizer because it is police power?
within the authority of the Philippine Fertilizer Authority. That
is the one that is insurmountable; and Justice Leonen disagreed Held:
with that. Because J. Leonen seems to be thinking that it is
possible to re-enact another ordinance because it’s so bad now
– everything is polluted. Yes. An ordinance constitutes a valid exercise of police power
if: (a) it has a lawful subject such as the interest of the public,
as distinguished from those of a particular class, requires its
FT: exercise; and (b) it uses a lawful method such that its
implementing measures must be reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon
The analysis here is still classic… individuals. The purpose of the Ordinance is to: (a) safeguard
the life and property of Davao City’s inhabitants 6; (b) keep the
KMU v. Aquino III, G.R. No. 210500, April 02, 2019 surrounding clean and orderly; (c) ensure public decency and
good taste; and (d) preserve the aesthetic relationship of these
Facts: structures as against the general surroundings 7. To achieve its
purposes, it employs the following: (a) Minimum distances
On April 19, 2013, the Social Security Commission issued must be observed in installing and in constructing outdoor
Resolution No. 262-.2013, which provided an increase in: (1) billboards (b) Additional requirements shall be observed in
the Social Security System members' contribution rate from locations designated as “regulated areas” to preserve the natural
10.4% to 11%; and (2) the maximum monthly salary credit view (c) Sign permits must be secured from and proper fees
from P15,000.00 to P16,000.00. The increase was subject to paid to the city government; and (d)Violators are given 60 days
the approval of the President, as provided in the Social Security from receipt of notice to correct and address its violation. The
Act. Is this a valid exercise of police power? Court will not be quick at invalidating an ordinance as
unreasonable unless the rules imposed are so excessive as to be
prohibitive, arbitrary, unreasonable, oppressive or confiscatory.
Held:
Meaning, it is not unduly oppressive of your property, right and You’ll analyze it by applying the 2 tests.
money.
Q: What is the purpose of the ordinance?
This one is also a Davao City case which I included. This is
another ordinance of Davao City wherein the SC used the same To protect definitely morals. I think it’s easy to reason out. If you
analysis… do barbering in a separate room, you don’t know what’s happening
there. That’s why, to require them not to render massage in a
Evasco, Jr. v. Montanez, G.R. No. 199172, Feb. 21, 20185 separate room will in effect promote morals. PURPOSE: To
protect morals.
Facts:
Q: Is the means not unduly oppressive of another right? Is
there a logical connection?
The City of Davao passed an ordinance regulating the
installation and maintenance of outdoor advertising materials. 6
Because some of them can fall in your heads during strong winds.
5 7
This time, the SC allowed it. Again it allowed aesthetics.
2
I see no problem. To ensure that morals are protected, you do not The NMAT is the admission to the medical school. In the other
render massage in a separate room. bar question, it was admission to the college of dentistry.
Q: Is that unduly oppressive of the right of the people who are Q: What is the valid subject here?
involved in this business?
To protect health.
I don’t think so.
Q: Why?
Q: Why?
Because dentists and doctors are in the health profession. You
Because it did not say that “from now on, massages are totally cannot have doctors who do not know how to cure. It is a valid
prohibited.” That will be unduly oppressive of the occupation of exercise of police power insofar as the purpose.
some people. That’s no longer regulation; that’s prohibiting it.
This is just a reasonable way to promote morals. Q: What about the method chosen? Is there a logical
connection?
(Asked 2 times) 2001, No. 138: The PPA issued an
adminstrative order to the effect that all existing regular To ensure that the right to health is protected, we try to screen
appointment to harbor pilot positions shall remain valid only people who want to get admitted to the medschool.
up to Dec. 31 of the current ever and that henceforth all
appointments to harbor pilot positions shall be only for a term Q: How do we do it?
of one year. Pilotage as a profession may be practiced only by
Those who did not pass for 3 times in the examination will not be
duly licensed individuals, who have to pass five government
allowed to take it again.
professional examinations.
Q: Is that unduly oppressive?
The harbor pilots association challenged the validity of said
admin order on the argument that it violated their right to I don’t think so.
exercise their profession and their right to due process of law
and that the said order was without prior notice and hearing. Q: Suppose the SC will come up with a rule that from now on,
Are they correct? if you flunk the bar once, goodbye forever; no more chance to
take it. Can you challenge it? (Some of you are frowning, I can
If you look at the question, this is one classic that I’ve told you – it see your faces.)
raises 2 questions. It’s saying:
I believe that you can challenge it. I believe that by saying that
o Is there a violation of procedural due process? “you can take only once” will be unduly oppressive.
As to procedural due process, take note here that it is rule-making. Q: What is the reason?
Since it’s rule-making, the PPA need not conduct a notice and
hearing – need not observe N&H. Sometimes, some people who are smart can fail the bar because
sometimes they’re too afraid or they got sick. So those are the
o Is there a violation of substantive due process? reasons. It has nothing to do with his/her ability to pass. But if the
SC puts it at 3 times, I think that would be difficult to challenge.
Yes, this ordinance violates substantive due process. That would be very reasonable. Because if you fail for the 3rd time,
I believe that something is not really that right with you. But once,
Q: How did the SC reasoned it out?
I believe it’s not too bad. Two, I will still challenge it. 3, I will say
Pilotage is a profession. Once you passed the exam, you have a that it’s ok. That’s what we mean by it should not be unduly
right to practice it. the gov’t cannot simply remove that right and oppressive of another right – the right to choose a profession.
say that you’re subjected to another examination. That would be
This one is not that easy to answer. I’m just showing it to you how
unduly oppressive of the exercise of a profession.
they ask it in the bar by using those principles, because you’re on
*It passed the procedural due process test, but it failed the your own once you’re taking the exam.
substantive due process test for the reason that, it’s unduly
2008, - VI -
oppressive to the right to practice your profession.
The Philippine National Police (PNP) issued a circular to all its
2000, No. 4: Undaunted by his 3 failures in the NMAT, Cruz
members directed at the style and length of male police
applied to take it again but he was refused because of an order
officers' hair, sideburns and moustaches, as well as the size of
of the DECS disallowing flunkers from taking the test for the
their waistlines. It prohibits beards, goatees and waistlines
4th time. Cruz filed suit assailing this rule raising the
over 38 inches, except for medical reason. Some police officers
constitutional grounds of accessible quality education,
questioned the validity of the circular, claiming that it violated
academic freedom and equal protection. The government
their right to liberty under the Constitution. Resolve the
opposes this, upholding the constitutionality of the rule on the
controversy. (6%)
ground of exercise of police power. Decide the case discussing
the grounds raised. Not that easy actually. The 1st thing that we need to consider here
is that, I’m thinking that if you belong to the police force, you can
Q: Is this a valid exercise of police power?
be subjected to stricter standards than ordinary individuals.
Q: Why?
8
This is based on an actual case.
2
Because you’re joining an organization. is an invalid exercise of police power? Explain your answer.
(2%)
For instance, if you’re prohibited from wearing beards and goatees,
I’m thinking that it has a valid purpose – that is to distinguish you I’m thinking that it’s valid.
from the criminals. At least the people will know which is the
police and which is the criminal. Having a waistline not over 38 Q: What is the purpose there?
inches is very logical. It’s not unduly oppressive also because if
you have a big2x tummy, how can chase the criminals who can To promote morals. I think that’s always the argument against
run faster than you? I’m thinking that there is really some kind of gambling – MORALS.
a logic in addition to the fact that you belong to a particular
We go to the 2nd analysis. To protect morals, we prohibit gambling.
organization because a certain organization can have its own
The only quarrel would be, Q: Is it unduly oppressive of another
standards.
right?
Suppose they should tell us: From now on, all citizens of the
What right is there? Do you have a right to gamble under the
Philippines should have a waistline of less than 35.
Constitution? I don’t think that there seems to be such right.
I don’t think that they have any business of doing that. That seems Maybe the right to enjoy yourselves; but you can enjoy yourselves.
to be a violation of my privacy of what I want to do with my body. It’s only one form which is prohibited – gambling. You can do
That seems to burden another right. That’s part of the liberties that other things.
citizens enjoy of how do we look. We have long hair, short hair.
There is another way to illustrate. For instance, suppose Congress
etc. The gov’t has no business of regulating that. But it’s not that
chooses number 2 – allow gambling only on Sundays. How will
straightforward. I’m only telling you that the standard of analysis
you challenge it?
will always go back to the 2.
The main challenge is, there is no logical connection between the
2010, XXI
method and the purpose of the law. It makes no sense to me. For
The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Pasay City passed an instance, you’ll say that, to promote morals, we will prohibit
ordinance requiring all disco pub owners to have all their gambling on Sundays. Q: What do you mean by that? You’re
hospitality girls tested for the AIDS virus. Both disco pub saying that it’s moral to gamble on Monday; immoral on Tuesday;
owners and the hospitality girls assailed the validity of the moral on Wednesday; immoral on Saturday – that would be the net
ordinance for being violative of their constitutional rights to effect of the law if you allow it on Sunday and your purpose is to
privacy and to freely choose a calling or business. Is the protect morals. That is the meaning of the lack of logical relation
ordinance valid? Explain. (5%) between the method and the purpose.
I think we have no problem with the purpose – to protect health TIP: Try to remember the 2-fold test. If you meet questions in
because hospitality girls can easily spread AIDS to their customers. the bar which have nothing to do with actual situations, go
back to it. Sometimes we quarrel about the results but if you
Q: Is that unduly oppressive? know the principles to apply, the one checking it will like it. I
think you know what I’m talking about because in many
They’re not really prohibited from exercising their calling or cases, some justices are not unanimous. Sometimes using the
business. It’s only that they will have to undergo test. So that’s ok. same analysis, some justices arrive at a different conclusion.
It’s good that you know all the standards when it comes to
Q: What about privacy? substantive due process.
It will be an issue of privacy if the results will be announced
publicly. But if the results will just be for the use of the employee,
as well as people in the health center so that you can be treated, I
do not see an issue of privacy. I believe that the ordinance is a
EQUAL PROTECTION LAWS
valid exercise of police power to promote health; and it does not
really prohibit you or unduly oppress another right. Not even the
right to privacy, depending on what would be the result.
This one they ask in 2009. Take note, they ask things which you Section 1: Due Process and Equal Protection
never see in cases.
Equal protection pertains to the requirement that laws
V, 2009 must treat all persons or things similarly situated alike,
both as to privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.
To address the pervasive problem of gambling, Congress is
considering the following options: (1) prohibit all forms of
gambling; (2) allow gambling only on Sundays; (3) allow In simple terms, Congress cannot pass a law which will give favors
gambling only in government-owned casinos; and (4) remove to a certain group; and conversely, it also cannot pass a law which
all prohibitions against gambling but impose a tax equivalent will prejudice a certain group or a certain class that it creates.
to 30% on all winnings.
PRINCIPLE: There should be no classification. Treat people
[a] If Congress chooses the first option and passes the equally.
Some comments:
corresponding law absolutely prohibiting all forms of
gambling, can the law be validly attacked on the ground that it
2
1. The provision intends to promote equality, not identify of seems to be no longer allowed by international law
rights – because we’ll learn later on that in different situations now in the UN Charter.
involving different groups, sometimes there will be no identity of
rights. In essence, for as long as the intention is to promote Hence, classifying without basis will be a violation of
equality, no problem. For instance, you have situations where we the EPC.
give more benefits to people who have disabilities (e.g. senior
2. Failure to classify when distinction exist – When the
citizens). There will be no identity of rights between us and them;
law fails to classify when it should have classified. that
but the purpose is in a sense, to promote equality. That’s the
was asked only in the bar once in 1989. The question
meaning. was based on Villegas v. City of Manila – when the
ordinance failed to classify when it should have
2. All laws tend to classify – but classification by itself does
classified.
not violate the provision – early on, I told you that when
Congress opens its mouth, it tends to affect our right; it tends to [Bar Q, 1989, No. 18: Villegas case]
burden our rights. But the law will be valid for as long as the An ordinance of the City fo Manila requires every alien
burden is not unreasonable. The 2 nd statement that I’m proposing is desiring to obtain employment of whatever kind, including
this: When Congress opens its mouth, it tends to classify. But that casual and part-time employment, in the city to secure an
does not mean that the law will be unconstitutional. employment permit from the City and to pay a work permit
fee of P500. Is the ordinance valid?
Q: What do I mean by that?
The Villegas case was in the 70s. P500 was a big2x amount. The
When Congress passes the FC, it favors people to plans to set-up SC nullified it on the ground of a violation of the EPC.
families. In a sense, it has nothing to do with people who does not
plan to put up families. When Congress passes the LC, it favors Q: Why?
laborers. When Congress passes the Agrarian Reform Law, it
favors actually landless people or tenants. When Congress passes The SC said that “wait a minute. Aliens are not all similarly
the RPC, it prejudices criminals. situated – some have very low income and some are very rich. If
you do not classify them and require them a uniform payment of
Q: Can the criminals say that “Why are you trying to prejudice P500, that would be unconstitutional.” That is one classic case
us? That law is unconstitutional. You violate the equal protection where failure to classify when there is a valid distinction will
clause”? result to a violation of the EPC.
Meaning, the fact that Congress classifies (in fact, it tends to TAKE NOTE – There is a violation of the EPC if:
classify every time it opens its mouth), that does not mean that the
law will be unconstitutional.
1.) Classifying when there is no basis to classify; and
Q: How then do I now whether the law is unconstitutional or
not? 2.) Not classifying when you should have classified
We’ll go to that.
When is classification permissble?
Two ways of violating the equal protection clause:
Two ways of justifying:
1. Classifying without basis (eye color/color blind] –
For instance, classifying people based on eye color.
Sometimes it can be a bit problematic. 1. When the Constitution allows it; or [Nunez and
Almonte] Cruz v. COMELEC]
Q: What about classifying people based on gender?
2. When it passes the 4 tests for a valid
Sometimes it will be allowable depending on the classification
situation but will explain that later on.
Years ago (that was the batch of Gamboa, the PNP Q: What are the 2 ways by which you can justify a violation of
Chief now), why do you prohibit short people from the EPC?
joining the PMA? His answer was because the PMA
trains officers. So when they are on parade, they should 1. When the Constitution allows it; or [Nunez and Almonte]
look beautiful – they are all tall. But I said, “That Cruz v. COMELEC] – For instance, the OMB has the jurisdiction
makes no sense! What is the purpose of the army? So to entertain complaints that were written anonymously. Anybody
that they will look beautiful?” Anyway, we’ll try to deal
can complain by saying that “bla blab la is doing this, etc. Pls
with that issue as we move on. The point simply is that,
investigate.” The OMB may investigate. This was challenged in
height can be sometimes a valid basis for
classification. the case of…
It used to be that skin color was the basis of apartheid. Almonte vs. Vasquez, 244 SCRA 286, G.R. No. 95367 May
Only recently in South Africa, black people were not 23, 1995
allowed until Mandela came into power. In the US
before, black people were not allowed to marry white Facts:
people until the 1960s, early 70s when Martin Luther
came. That’s classification based on skin color. That He stated that, “wait a minute. That is a violation of the EPC
2
because other people in other tribunals can only be charged 3. It must not be limited to existing conditions only;
and we know who is filing a case against us – they disclose
their identity and they execute sworn statements. Why is it that 4. It must apply equally to members of the same class.
we government officials are being prejudiced? Because even
anonymous complaints are entertained. “
When I asked General Gamboa, his answer was that he wants the
Held:
officer to be tall so that he will look beautiful on parade. But I
think that would not anymore be germane to the purpose of the
If you look at the Constitution, the Constitution is saying that law. 1st, it’s possible that there might be a distinction between tall
the OMB can entertain complaints in any manner or form.
and short people; but when it comes to having an army…
Meaning, the Constitution allows it. so you cannot complain of
the violation of the EPC. Q: What is the purpose of an army?
2
police force. But for instance, passing a law prohibiting
women from engaging in the sport of boxing might be
sustainable. Because women give birth. That might be
more important for their health.
Age
(I) What are the three (3) levels of test that are applied in equal
protection cases? Explain. (3%)
That’s the one that I’ve told you. You can apply the:
(2) Which of the three (3) levels of test should be applied to the
present case? Explain. (3%)