Tuesday, 12 February 2019

Consti II [midterm notes]

Constitutional Supremacy
This doctrine was set forth in Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS:

• This doctrine states that if a law or statute violates the Const, such law or statue is
null and void and w/out force and effect.

• The Const. is supreme (the fundamental law of the land) and is deemed written in
every statute and contract.

• The case of Manila Prince also provides that the rule is: generally, provs of the
Consti are self-executing, that is, they are able to stand on their own; otherwise, it
would be rendered meaningless by the Congress’ refusal or failure to pass needed
legislation.

3 inherent powers of the State

Common attributes among the 3 state powers:

• Inherent (even w/out the Const, they still apply)

• Exercised by the legislature

• May be delegated
- Power to tax → LGUs

- Police power → LGUs

- Eminent domain → LGUs

1. Police power
• Being one of the inherent and fundamental powers of the state, it is limitless and
can be exercised even w/out the Const granting the same; (Ortigas & Co. v.
FEATI Bank)

• The term police power was first used by Chief Justice Marshall; (Jesus Morfe v.
Mutuc)

• Justice Malcolm negatively puts it as “that inherent and plenary power in the
state which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety, and
welfare of society”. (Jesus Morfe v. Mutuc)

• Succinctly, it can be described as the power to prescribe regulations to promote

the health, morals, education, good order, safety, or the general welfare and
public interest of the people. (Jesus Morfe v. Mutuc)

• Simplest and most straightforward definition of police power: “That power

inherent in the State to regulate liberty and property for the promotion of the

1
 Tuesday, 12 February 2019
general welfare (and public interest).” It extends to all the great public needs and
is described as the most pervasive, the least limitable, and the most demanding
of the three inherent state powers. (Ynot v. IAC)

• The 2 requisites for the proper exercise of police power:

1. That the interests of the public, as distinguished from those of a
particular class, requires the interference of the State (lawful subject);

2. That the means employed are reasonably necessary to attain the object
sought and not unduly oppressive upon individuals (lawful method).
(Lucena v. Jac Liner)

• Overbreadth doctrine
- When it goes beyond what is reasonably necessary;

- “The purpose sought to be attained could have been attained by reasonable

restrictions rather than by an absolute prohibition…”;

- When the measure was found to be more sweeping than what is necessary;

• The state, in order to promote the general welfare, may interfere w/ personal
liberty, w/ property, and w/ business and occupations. Persons may be
subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general
comfort, health, and prosperity of the state, and to this fundamental aim of our
gov’t, the rights of individuals are subordinated. (Ortigas & Co. v. FEATI Bank)

• Taxes, when exercised for a regulatory purpose, is no longer a pure exercise of

taxing power. It is now an exercise of police power. The questioned taxes in the
Sugar Adjustment Act is levied for a regulatory purpose, to provide means for
the stabilisation of the threatened sugar industry. It is a valid exercise of police
power. The protection and promotion of the sugar industry is a matter of public
concern, being one of the most lucrative industries of the PH economy. (Walter
Lutz v. Araneta)

• Non-impairment clause cannot prevail over the police power of the state. As
long as a contract or agreement deals w/ a matter affecting public interest or the
public welfare, such a contract cannot prevail over a valid exercise of police
power. (PNB v. OP)

• Police power is the most essential, insistent, and least limitable of powers,
extending as it does to all great public needs. It is vested in the legislature to
make, ordain, and establish reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances for the
good and welfare of the public. (Carlos Superdrug v. DSWD)

• When conditions so demand as determined by the legislature, property rights

must bow down to the primacy of police power bec property rights, though
sheltered by due process, must yield to the general welfare. Hence, the state

2
 Tuesday, 12 February 2019
can intervene in the operations of business which may result in the impairment
of property rights. (Carlos Superdrug v. DSWD)

• Eminent domain as distinguished from police power: (Dipidio Earth Savers v.

Gozun)

- Police power

(1) General welfare as its object;

(2) Property condemned under police power is usually noxious or

intended for a noxious purpose, hence, no compensation is given to
the private individual;

(3) Where property interest is restricted bec continued use thereof would
be injurious to public welfare, or where property is destroyed bec its
continued existence would be injurious to public interest, there is NO
compensable taking.

(4) Accdg. to Fr. Bernas, i.e., if the use of the property by the owner was
limited, but no aspect of it was used by or for the public, such
deprivation will NOT constitute compensable taking.

- Eminent domain

(5) General welfare as its object also;

(6) There is compensable taking. If in the regulation of the use of any

property, somebody else acquires the use or interest thereof, such
restriction constitutes compensable taking.

(7) In sum, property taken under police power is sought to be

destroyed, while under eminent domain it is devoted to a public
use.
2. Power of eminent domain
• This is defined as the power of the state to acquire private property for a public
purpose, provided that there is just compensation in exchange.

• General rule is that an offer must first be made to the owner of the private
property. If the offer is refused and the parties fail to agree on the negotiation of
the sale of the land, then an expropriation proceeding may be instituted by the
gov’t implementing agency/instrumentality concerned. (Rep. of the PH v. Tagle)

• If no price is given, then there is no offer to purchase the private property. (Jesus
is Lord v. Municipality of Pasig)

• The 4 requisites for the valid exercise of the power of eminent domain by a
local gov’t: (Jesus is Lord v. Municipality of Pasig)

3
 Tuesday, 12 February 2019
1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorising the
local chief executive, in behalf of the LGU, to exercise the power of
eminent domain or pursue expropriation proceedings over a particular
private property;

2. That eminent domain is exercised for a public use, purpose, or welfare, or

for the benefit of the poor and the landless;

3. There is payment of just compensation;

4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the
property sought to be expropriated, but said offer was not accepted.

• The value of the property must be determined either as of the date of the taking of
the property or the filing of the complaint — whichever came first. (Eslaban v. Vda.
De Onorio)

• What does just compensation mean? (Eslaban v. Vda. De Onorio)

- Just and correct amount;

- Payment of the land w/in a reasonable amount time from its taking; no delay
in the payment, otherwise, compensation cannot be considered just;

- The owner should only be compensated for what he actually he loses; it is not
intended that compensation shall extend beyond his loss or injury since what
he loses is the actual value of his property at the time it was taken by the
gov’t.

• Right-of-way v. Eminent domain

- Being deprived of the beneficial use of one’s own property via acquisition of a
right-of-way is considered an exercise of eminent domain even if there has
been no actual taking or possession of the property. (NAPOCOR v. Spouses
Gutierrez & Malit)

• Meaning of “Public use” or “for a public purpose”

- Should not be taken literally;

- It’s accurate to say that, at present, whatever may be beneficially employed

for the general welfare satisfies the requirements of public use, for whatever is
beneficially employed for the community is a public use. (Jesus is Lord v.
Municipality of Pasig)

3. Power of taxation
• What is the purpose of the power to tax?
- Its primary and specific purpose is to raise revenue for the state. Hence, it is
called the lifeblood of the state.

4
 Tuesday, 12 February 2019
• If, however, a tax was levied with a regulatory purpose, it becomes an exercise of
the police power since there is regulation, and it is no longer a pure exercise of
the taxing power. Its purpose is not primarily to raise revenues or funds, but
rather, to regulate. (Gaston v. Republic Planters)

• What are the limitations of the power to tax?

- General limit: The power to tax exists for the general welfare, that is, it must
be exercised only for a public purpose. Hence, it must not be oppressive and
discriminatory to the taxpayers.

- Specific limitations (ART. VI, Sec. 28, par. 1):

1. Taxes must be uniform and equitable → Similar to the kindred concept of

equal protection: that all subjects and objects of taxation similarly situated
are to be treated alike both in privileges and liabilities. Thus, all taxable
subjects and objects of the same class must be taxed at the same rate,
and such tax rate must operate w/ the same force and effect in every
place where the subject may be found. Uniformity in tax allows for a
classification of the objects of taxation, so long as it meets the essential
requisites for a valid classification: (1) based on substantial
distinctions which make for real differences; (2) germane to the purposes
of the law; (3) applies not only to present conditions, but also to future
conditions; and (4) applies equally to all who belong to the same class.
(CIR v. CA & Fortune Tobacco)

2. Progressive system of taxation → It is progressive when the rate

increases as the tax base increases; this is so provided in order that there
be a more equitable distribution of wealth.

• Deductions for income tax purposes or tax refunds partake of the nature of tax
exemptions and are to be strictly construed against the taxpayer, claiming the
exemption. He has the burden of proof to prove by convincing evidence that he is
entitled to the tax exemption. (PHILEX v. CIR and CIR v. SC Johnson)

The Bill of Rights in general

• The Bill of Rights embodied in the Consti is not meant to be invoked against acts
of private individuals. Rather, the protection provided therein is a protection
accorded to the citizen as against the State. The Bill of Rights governs the
relationship between the individual and the State. What it does is to declare some
forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder. (People v.
Andre Marti)

• Hence, the constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures

applies as a restraint only against the gov’t and its agencies tasked w/ the
enforcement of the law. It cannot be applied to acts committed by private
individuals. (People v. Andre Marti)

5
 Tuesday, 12 February 2019

Due Process of Law

• The constitutional safeguard of due process is embodied in the fiat: “No person
shall be deprived of life, liberty or property w/out due process of law.” (City of
Manila v. Laguio)

• There is no controlling definition of due process, but it provides a standard to which

gov’t action must conform in order that a deprivation of life, liberty or property may
be valid. This standard is aptly described as a responsiveness to the supremacy of
reason, obedience to the dictates of justice, and as such, it is a limitation to the
exercise of police power. (City of Manila v. Laguio)

• Once an alien is admitted into PH territory, he cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or

property w/out due process of law. This includes the means of livelihood. The
protection under the due process and equal protection clauses is given to all
persons, both aliens and citizens. (Mayor Villegas v. His Chiong Tsai Pao Ho)

• The ESSENCE of due process is the opportunity to be heard and to present

evidence in support of one’s case. (Alba v. The Hon. Deputy Ombudsman)

• Due process is satisfied as long as the party is accorded the opportunity to be

heard. If not availed of, it is deemed to be waived or forfeited w/out violating the
constitutional guarantee. (Bautista v. CA)

• Substantive due process

- Asks whether the gov’t has an adequate reason for taking away a person’s life,
liberty or property. It looks to whether there is a sufficient justification for the
gov’t’s action; (City of Manila v. Laguio)

- Involves the substantive aspect of the law — that a law must be fair, reasonable,
just, and not unduly oppressive;

- Serves as a protection against unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive laws;

- Void for vagueness doctrine: A statute is void if it lacks comprehensible

standards or too vague for a man of average intelligence to understand. To be
operative, a law or statute must be utterly vague. Thus, if a law could be
interpreted in various ways, it is void bec of vagueness. Such a law is
unconstitutional bec it fails to give to persons proper or fair notice of the law,
and that the gov’t is given unbridled freedom to carry out its provs.

• Procedural due process

- Refers to the procedures that gov’t must follow before it deprives a person of
life, liberty or property (ex: what kind of notice and what form of hearing the
gov’t must provide when it takes a particular action); (City of Manila v. Laguio)

6
 Tuesday, 12 February 2019
- Generally, it involves a case (whether judicial proceeding, administrative
proceeding, etc.) wherein the parties must be heard to present their respective
sides;

- Essentially, it requires that an individual be afforded the reasonable opportunity

to be heard and submit any evidence he may have in support of his defense.
(Samartino v. Raon)

• In judicial proceedings, the requirements of procedural due process are: (El

Blanco v. Palanca)

1. There must be a court of tribunal clothed w/ jurisdiction over the subject matter;

2. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or over the property which is the
subject of the proceeding be lawfully acquired;

3. Defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard; and

4. Judgment shall be rendered upon lawful hearing.

• In administrative proceedings, the procedural due process requirements

(“seven cardinal primary rights”) are:
1. Right to a hearing, which includes the right of the party to submit evidence in
support of his case;

2. The tribunal must consider the evidence being presented;

3. The decision of the tribunal must be supported by evidence;

4. The evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence is more than a mere

scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.

5. The evidence must be presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the

recored, AND disclosed to the parties affected;

6. The tribunal or any of its judges must rely on its own independent consideration
of evidence, and not rely merely on the recommendation of a subordinate in
reaching a decision;

7. The decision must be rendered in such a way that the parties are apprised of
the issues involved and reasons for the decision.

• On statutory due process: the right to appeal is a right granted by statute, and it is
part of due process of law, denial of which violates the due process clause of the
Consti. (Reyes v. CA)

• BUT in another case, the right to appeal is not a natural right, and therefore NOT a
part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege. Hence, due process may still
be satisfied notwithstanding a denial of the right to appeal since the essence of due
process is so and so… (Alba v. The Hon. Deputy Ombudsman)

7
 Tuesday, 12 February 2019
• Hierarchy of rights: As to their order of importance and priority, right to life comes
first, followed by right to liberty, and then, right to property.

Equal Protection of Law

• Equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be
treated alike, both in rights conferred and liabilities imposed. The guarantee means
that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of laws
which is enjoyed by other persons or classes in like circumstances. (City of Manila v.
Laguio)

• This protection also extends to artificial persons but only insofar as their property is
concerned. (City of Manila v. Laguio)

• The guarantee of equal protection of the law is NOT violated by a law which is
based on a reasonable and valid classification. The elements of a valid
classification are:
1. Must be based on substantial distinctions which make for real differences;

2. Must be germane to the purposes of law;

3. Must not be limited to existing conditions only;

4. Must apply equally to all members of the same class.

Searches & Seizures

• The legality of a search and seizure can be questioned or contested only by the
party whose rights have been impaired thereby, and the objection to an unlawful
search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties.
(Stonehill v. Diokno)

• Requisites for issuance of a valid search warrant: (Stonehill v. Diokno)

1. Shall be issued only upon probable cause in connection w/ a specific
offense, to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce; and

2. That the warrant shall particularly describe the place to be searched and the
things to be seized.

• Note that for a search warrant to escape the imputation of being unreasonable,
there should be strict conformity w/ the requirements of the Consti and the
applicable procedural rules. (Co Ling v. Pabalan)

• The rule is that a description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer w/
the warrant can reasonably ascertain and identify the place intended to be
searched. (People v. Salanguit y Ko)

• John Doe warrants are ALLOWED.

8
 Tuesday, 12 February 2019
- A John Doe warrant is one that provides the pseudonym of ‘John Doe’ instead
of the actual name of the person to be searched and seized, for the reason that
such identity is not yet known to the authorities.

- This is allowed by the law so long as the warrant provides a sufficient

description to reasonably identify the proper person upon whom the search
warrant is to be served.

- However, John Doe search warrants should be the EXCEPTION and not the rule.

• General warrants are NOT allowed.

- A general warrant is one that does not allege a specific offense, or that the
averments to the offense being alleged are abstract. Or even, that the warrant
does not allege any specific acts or omissions committed, violating specific
provisions of the law.

- A general warrant may also provide a broad description, instead of being

specific or particular, on the things to be seized.

- It is basically a license for fishing expeditions — to look for any object in your
home that is incriminating and may be used against you in a criminal
proceeding. → This is the evil sought to be avoided by the specificity
requirement in the descriptions found in search warrants.

• Moreover, no warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense. (Stonehill v.
Diokno)

• Exclusionary rule: This rule posits that any article (docs, books, papers, or things)
obtained or seized from an unreasonable or illegal search and seizure shall be
deemed inadmissible as evidence. It is said to be the only practical way of
enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures.
(Stonehill v. Diokno) → Moncado ruling has been abandoned by the SC in the
landmark case of Stonehill wherein the NON-exclusionary rule is no longer
applicable at present.

• The right against unreasonable search and seizures is NOT ABSOLUTE. There are
certain instances when a warrantless search and seizure becomes valid:
(People v. Damaso)
1. Search incidental to an arrest

2. Search of a moving vehicle

3. Seizure of evidence in plain view (the Plain view doctrine)

• The immunity from an unreasonable search and seizure, being a personal one,
cannot be waived by anybody except the person whose rights are invaded, or by
one who is expressly authorized to do so in his behalf. (People v. Damaso)

9
 Tuesday, 12 February 2019
• The right against unreasonable search and seizures is a personal right which may
be waived expressly or impliedly. But a waiver by implication cannot be presumed.
There must be persuasive evidence of an actual intention to relinquish the right.
Mere failure on the part of the accused to object to a search cannot be construed
as a waiver of this right or privilege. (People v. Cubcubin)

• Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure in the acquisition by the
court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters
his plea, otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. Hence, any irregularity
attendant to his arrest, if any, was cured when he voluntarily submitted himself to
the court’s jurisdiction and participated in the trial. (People v. Codilla)

• The illegality of the search warrant does not call for the return of the things seized if
the possession of such things is prohibited by law (like w/ contraband stuff). (Co
Ling v. Pabalan)

• Plain view doctrine: Under this doctrine, unlawful objects w/in “plain view” of an
officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure
and may be admissible in evidence. The requisites are:

1. Prior justification (such as a search warrant for another object, hot pursuit,
search incident to lawful arrest, etc.)

2. Inadvertent discovery of the evidence;

3. Immediate apparent illegality of the evidence before the police.

• Fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine: This is actually an offshoot of the

Exclusionary Rule. This doctrine posits that any article (docs, books, papers, or
things) or information gained thru another of the same that was obtained from an
unreasonable or illegal search and seizure shall be inadmissible in evidence. The
poisonous tree represents the original “evidence” that was illegally obtained, while
the fruit represents the other “evidence” that derived from the original illegality.

• Castle doctrine

- The right to privacy → can be waived

- A man’s home is his “castle”, hence, he has a right to be left alone;

- Any warrantless arrest must be construed strictly against the state and
favourably towards the individual.

10