Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Quiz No.1 - Ryan Paul Aquino - SN22-00258
Quiz No.1 - Ryan Paul Aquino - SN22-00258
No, Baldomero cannot demand the return of the property if the Government does not immediately
pay the amount fixed by the court as just compensation.
In the case of Forfom Development Corporation v. PNR and De Ynchausti v. Manila Electric
Railroad & Light Co., the Supreme Court held that the owner cannot reclaim the property with a
court decision granting the Government full possession, and in such a case can only claim right of
compensation plus interest from the time of taking of the property.
Under the Constitution, Section 9, Article III states that private property shall not be taken for
public use without just compensation. Since there is a court decision granting the expropriation
and fixed the amount of compensation, Baldomero cannot recover the property, however, he can
claim for compensation plus the legal rate of 6% interest per annum from the taking of the property.
Yes, the law can be validly attacked on the ground that it is an invalid exercise of police power.
Congress has the plenary power to enact law and interfere with the personal liberty and property in
order to promote the general welfare. In the case of Planters Products Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation,
the Supreme Court discussed that the exercise of police power is subject to two (2) tests: 1) lawful
subject which refers to the interest of the general public requiring the interference of the State, and
2) lawful means which refers to the reasonable means employed necessary for the accomplishment
of its objective and not duly oppressive upon individuals.
In addition, there are two (2) basis of the exercise of police power. First, is “sic utere tuo et alienum
non laedas” or use your property so that you do not injure that of another and the other one is
“salus populi est suprema lex” which means the welfare of the people is the highest law. Hence,
Congress may not ban all forms of gambling but may regulate it.
b. If Congress chooses the last option and passes the corresponding law imposing a 30% tax
on all winnings and prizes won from gambling, would the law comply with the constitutional
limitations on the exercise of the power of taxation? Explain your answer. 5 pts.
A law imposing 30% tax on all winnings and prizes won from gambling complies with the
limitation on the power of taxation.
In the case of Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operatos Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of
Manila, it was held that taxes on non-useful enterprises may be increased to restrain the number
of persons who might otherwise engage in it. In addition, in the case of Lutz v. Araneta, it was
noted that taxes may be imposed for the attainment of the objective of police power.
In this case, the imposition of 30% tax on winnings and prizes comply with the said limitations on
power of taxation. Hence, it is constitutional.