Constitutional Law Cases 2nd Batch

8/18/2019 Constitutional Law Cases 2nd Batch

1/42

PEOPLE VS. VERAG.R. No. L-45685November 16, 1937

FACTS:

Cu Unjieng was convicted by the trial court in Manila. He filed for

reconsideration which was elevated to the SC and the SC reanded the a!!eal

to the lower court for a new trial.

"hile awaiting new trial# he a!!ealed for !robation alleging that the he is

innocent of the crie he was convicted of. $udge Tuason of the Manila CF%

directed the a!!eal to the %nsular &robation 'ffice. The %&' denied the

a!!lication. However# $udge (era u!on another re)uest by Cu Unjieng allowed

the !etition to be set for hearing. The City &rosecutor countered alleging that

(era has no !ower to !lace Cu Unjieng under !robation because it is in

violation of Sec. ** Act +o. ,--* which !rovides that the act of egislaturegranting !rovincial boards the !ower to !rovide a syste of !robation to

convicted !erson. +owhere in the law is stated that the law is a!!licable to a

city li/e Manila because it is only indicated therein that only !rovinces are

covered. And even if Manila is covered by the law it is unconstitutional because

Sec * Art 0 of the Constitution !rovides e)ual !rotection of laws. The said law

!rovides absolute discretion to !rovincial boards and this also constitutes

undue delegation of !ower. Further# the said !robation law ay be an

encroachent of the !ower of the e1ecutive to !rovide !ardon because

!roviding !robation# in effect# is granting freedo# as in !ardon.

%SSU2:

"hether or not e)ual !rotection is violated when the &robation aw !rovides

that only in those !rovinces in which the res!ective !rovincial boards have

!rovided for the salary of a !robation officer3 ay the !robation syste be

a!!lied.

H24:

The act of granting !robation is not the sae as !ardon. %n fact it is liited

and is in a way an i!osition of !enalty. There is undue delegation of !ower

because there is no set standard !rovided by Congress on how !rovincial

boards ust act in carrying out a syste of !robation. The !rovincial boards

are given absolute discretion which is violative of the constitution and the

doctrine of the non delegability of !ower. Further# it is a violation of e)uity so

!rotected by the constitution. The challenged section of Act +o. ,--* in

section **which reads as follows: This Act shall a!!ly only in those !rovinces

in which the res!ective !rovincial boards have !rovided for the salary of a

!robation officer at rates not lower than those now !rovided for !rovincial

fiscals. Said !robation officer shall be a!!ointed by the Secretary of $ustice

and shall be subject to the direction of the &robation 'ffice.

This only eans that only !rovinces that can !rovide a!!ro!riation for a

!robation officer ay have a syste of !robation within their locality. This

would ean to say that convicts in !rovinces where no !robation officer is

instituted ay not avail of their right to !robation.

The SC declared the old !robation law as unconstitutional.

A5C2TA (S. MA+65'7A+6

6.5. +o. *8-98; $une *8# -


2/42

cash. At the tie of issue# Arceta did not have sufficient funds or credit with

the drawee ban/ and her chec/ was subse)uently dishonored by drawee ban/

for reason Ddrawn against insufficient fundsE.

Case -

The City &rosecutor of Caloocan filed a charge sheet against 6loria S.

4y for violation of 7ouncing Chec/s aw in an alleged inforation that on the

onth of $anuary -.

%n the case at bar# the court agreed that the re)uisites were

ade)uately et by the !etitioners. The court did not find the constitutional

)uestion raised by the !etitioners to be the very lis mota of the case. %n the

nullification of a certain law# there ust be a clear and une)uivocal breach of

the Constitution# and not one that is doubtful# s!eculative or arguentative.

"e have e1ained the contentions of the !etitioners carefully; butthey still have to !ersuade us that 7.&. 7lg. -- by itself or in its

i!leentation transgressed a !rovision of the Constitution.

Cruz v E!r"#eG.R. No. 75983 A$r"# 15, 1988

Facts:

Habeas corpus !roceedings were coenced on 'ctober *# *9? to

test the legality of the continued detention of soe -* soBcalled !olitical

detainees arrested in the nineByear s!an of official artial rule and coittedto the +ew 7ilibid &risons in Muntinlu!a. All had been ade to stand trial for

coon cries before various courts artial; if any of these offenses had any

!olitical color# this had neither been !leaded nor !roved. 'f the -* !risoners#

*8 are civilians# and only -? confired as ilitary !ersonnel. 'ne hundred

and fifteen @**8 accused had been condened to die. FortyBsi1 @,? were

sentenced to life i!risonent. To nine @ others were eted !rison ters of

fro twenty to thirty years; to fortyBone @,*# !rison ters of ten to twenty

years; and to three @0# less than ten years. &residential anesty was granted

to !etitioner (irgilio Alejandrino# yet to this date he reains a !risoner at the

&enitentiary# as to 4oingo 5eyes# Antonio &uar# Teodoro &atano# Andres

&arado and 4aniel Ca!us# although they were ac)uitted of the charges

against the# and 5eynaldo C. 5eyes and 5osalino de los Santos# who a!!ear

to have fully served the sentences i!osed on the by the ilitary

coissions which convicted the.

The !etitioners urge the Court to declare unconstitutional the establishent of

all ilitary tribunals as well as 6eneral 'rder +o. 9 ordaining their creation#

and the nullity of all the !roceedings had against the before these bodies as

a result of which they had been illegally de!rived of their liberty. Their !lea is

for the grant of a retrial of their res!ective cases in the civil courts# where their

right to due !rocess ay be accorded res!ect. The writ of habeas

corpus issued on $uly 0*# *9# two wee/s after an aended !etition was filed

with leave of court# reiterating the arguents originally !leaded# and setting

forth the additional clai that the !ronounceent of this Court of the lac/ of

jurisdiction of ilitary tribunals to try cases of civilians even during artial

rule# as declared in Olaquer, et al. vs. Military Commission No. 34, et

al., entitled the !etitioners to be unconditionally freed fro detention.

%ssue:

"hether the establishent of all ilitary tribunals as well as 6eneral

'rder +o. 9 ordaining their creation ay be declared unconstitutional

Held:

Ges.

%n 'la)uer# this Court in no uncertain ters affed that

... a ilitary jurisdiction or tribunal cannot try and e1ercise

jurisdiction# even during the !eriod of artial law# over

civilians for offenses allegedly coitted by the as long as

the civil courts are o!en and functioning# and that any

judgent rendered by such body relating to a civilian is nulland void for lac/ of jurisdiction on the !art of the ilitary


3/42

tribunal concerned @&eo!le v. +avarro# ?0 SC5A -?,# -,

=*8>. For the sae reasons# 'ur !ronounceent

in Aquino, r. v. Military Commission No. ! @B00?,#?0 SC5A

8,? and all decided cases affiring the sae# in so far as

they are inconsistent with this !ronounceent# should be

deeed abandoned.*?

Such is the stateent of the doctrine s)uarely a!!licable in these cases.

*. Clearly# no right to relief under Olaquer e1ists in favor of the -? !etitioners

who were adittedly in the ilitary service. * 'ver the the courts artial

yardly e1ercised jurisdiction. %t need only be said that these tribunals were

created !recisely to try and decide cases of ilitary !ersonnel# and the validity

of 6eneral 'rder +o. 9 ordaining their creation# although re!eatedly

challenged on constitutional grounds# has as any ties been u!held by the

Court# either e1!ressly or i!liedly. *9 As to these !etitioners# the writ is thus

unavailing.

-. 4eference to the Olaquer decision i!els on the other hand the a!!licationthereof to all civilians# without distinction# who were haled before ilitary

tribunals. To be sure# due consideration was given to the subittal that the

doctrine is# or should be declared as# liited in a!licability to !olitical of

fenders# and not ordinary cries such as those of which the civilian

!etitioners were convicted. *9a 7ut distinction should not be set where none

were clearly intended. The issue in Olaquer # as here# is the jurisdiction of

courts artial over the persons of civilians# and not erely over the cries

i!uted to the# regardless of which they are entitled to trial by judicial# not

e1ecutive or ilitary !rocess. Conforably with this holding# the dis!osition of

these cases would necessarily have# as a !reise# the invalidity of any and all

!roceedings had before courts artial against the civilian !etitioners. There is

all the ore reason to stri/e down the !roceedings leading to the conviction of

these nonB!olitical detainees who should have been brought before the courts

of justice in the first !lace# as their offenses are totally unrelated to the

insurgency avowedly sought to be controlled by artial rule.

4ue regard for consistency li/ewise dictates rejection of the !ro!osal to erely

give !ros!ective effect to Olaquer . +o distinction should be ade# as the

!ublic res!ondents !ro!ose# between cases still being tried and those finally

decided or already under review. All cases ust be treated ali/e# regardless of

the stage they ha!!en to be in# and since according to Olaquer # all

!roceedings before courts artial in cases involving civilians are null and void#

the court dees it !ro!er to adhere to that une)uivocal !ronounceent#!erceiving no cogent reason to deviate fro the doctrine.

The !etition is hereby granted insofar as !etitioners (ergilio Alejandrino#

4oingo 5eyes# Antonio &uar Teodoro &atono# Andres &arado# 4el

Ca!us# 5eynaldo C. 5eyes and 5osalino de los Santos are concerned. The

4irector of the 7ureau of &risons is hereby ordered to effect the iediate

release of the aboveBentioned !etitioners# unless there are other legal

causes that ay warrant their detention.

The !etition is 4%SM%SS24 as to !etitioners 2l!idio Cacho# "illia orenIana#

7enigno 7antolino# 6etulio 7. 7raga# $r.# Toas C. Aarte# 5ogelio .

Caricungan# 2rnesto 7aradiel# %sabelo +arne# 2ric F. &ichay# &ablo Callejo#

5ussel A. &aulino# aurel aaca# Tirso F. 7ala# Cali1to Soera# 2dulino

acsina @4raftee# 5onnie A. CeliI# 2l!idio Urbano# Sofronio 6alo# A)uilino

eyran# eo!oldo Arcadio# 5olando Tudin# 5osendo %. 5aos# &acifica 7atacan#

2dilberto iberato# $iy C. 5ealis# 4eocrito oraJa who are all ilitary

!ersonnel.

As to the other !etitioners# the 4e!artent of $ustice is hereby 4%52CT24 T'

F%2 the necessary inforations against the in the courts having jurisdiction

over the offenses involved# within one hundred eighty @*9


4/42

He then !etition this Court for review on certiorari contending that thee1ecutive order is unconstitutional insofar as it authoriIes outright confiscationof the carabao or carabeef being trans!orted across !rovincial boundaries. Hisclai is that the !enalty is invalid because it is i!osed without according theowner a right to be heard before a co!etent and i!artial court asguaranteed by due !rocess. He co!lains that the easure should not havebeen !resued# and so sustained# as constitutional. There is also a challengeto the i!ro!er e1ercise of the legislative !ower by the forer &resident under

Aendent +o. ? of the *0 Constitution.

%SSU2:

"L+ 2' +o. ?-?BA is an invalid e1ercise of !olice !ower

H24:

Ges. 2' +o. ?-?BA is an invalid e1ercise of !olice !ower.

The !rotection of the general welfare is the !articular function of the !olice

!ower which both restraints and is restrained by due !rocess. The !olice !oweris si!ly defined as the !ower inherent in the State to regulate liberty and!ro!erty for the !rootion of the general welfare. %t is found in the venerableatin a1is# Salus!o!uliestsu!reale1 and Sic uteretuoutalienu nonlaedas# which call for the subordination of individual interests to the benefit of the greater nuber.

%n the case of United States v. Toribio# the Court declared that to justify theState in thus inter!osing its authority in behalf of the !ublic# it ust a!!ear#first# that the interests of the !ublic generally# as distinguished fro those of a!articular class# re)uire such interference; and second# that the eans arereasonably necessary for the acco!lishent of the !ur!ose# and not undulyo!!ressive u!on individuals.

%n this case#while conceding that it has a lawful subject# it cannot be said thatit co!lies with the second re)uireent# viz., that there be a lawful ethod.%t was noted that to strengthen the original easure# 21ecutive 'rder +o.?-?BA i!oses an absolute ban not on the slau"hter of the carabaos but ontheir movement # !roviding that no carabao and no carabeef shall betrans!orted fro one !rovince to another. The reasonable connection betweenthe eans e!loyed and the !ur!ose sought to be achieved by the )uestionedeasure is issing. %t cannot be seen how the !rohibition of the interB!rovincial trans!ort of carabaos can !revent their indiscriinate slaughter#considering that they can be /illed anywhere# with no less difficulty in one!rovince than in another. 'bviously# retaining the carabaos in one !rovince willnot !revent their slaughter there. As for the carabeef# the !rohibition is adeto a!!ly to it. However# if the oveent of the live anials for the !ur!ose of !reventing their slaughter cannot be !rohibited# it should follow that there is

no reason either to !rohibit their transfer as# not to be fli!!ant dead eat.Also# the !enalty is outright confiscation of the carabao or carabeef beingtrans!orted# to be eted out by the e1ecutive authorities# usually the !oliceonly.

The challenged easure is an invalid e1ercise of the !olice !ower because theethod e!loyed to conserve the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the

!ur!ose of the law and# worse# is unduly o!!ressive. 4ue !rocess is violatedbecause the owner of the !ro!erty confiscated is denied the right to be heardin his defense and is iediately condened and !unished. The conferenton the adinistrative authorities of the !ower to adjudge the guilt of thesu!!osed offender is a clear encroachent on judicial functions and ilitatesagainst the doctrine of se!aration of !owers. There is# finally# also an invaliddelegation of legislative !owers to the officers entioned therein who aregranted unliited discretion in the distribution of the !ro!erties arbitrarilyta/en. Hence# 21ecutive 'rder +o. ?-?BA unconstitutional.

REP/L'C O0 2E P2'L'PP'NES v. CA, 2ENR'CO VERO, E AL.G.R. No. 7973 November 8, 1993

Facts: The 5e!ublic of the &hili!!ines has sought the e1!ro!riation of certain

!ortions of land owned by the !rivate res!ondents. The latter deand that the

just co!ensation for the !ro!erty should be based on fair ar/et value and

not that set by &residential 4ecree +o. ?# as aended# which fi1es !ayent

on the basis of the assessent by the assessor or the declared valuation by

the owner# whichever is lower. The 5TC ruled for the !rivate res!ondents. The

CA affired said decision. Hence# the instant !etition by the 5e!ublic.

%n #$port %rocessin" &one Authority '(#%&A() vs. *ulay, etc. et al., the Court

held the deterination of just co!ensation in einent doain to be a judicial

function and it thereby declared &residential 4ecree +o. ?# as well as related

decrees# including &residential 4ecree +o. *800# to the contrary e1tent# asunconstitutional and as an i!erissible encroachent of judicial

!rerogatives. The ruling# now conceded by the 5e!ublic was reiterated in

subse)uent cases.

%ssue: "hether the declaration of nullity of the law in )uestion should have

!ros!ective# not retroactive# a!!lication.

Held: There are two views on the effects of a declaration of the

unconstitutionality of a statute:

The first is the ortho+o$ vie . Under this rule# as announced in Norton v.

-helby # )! u!*o!&"&u&"o!)# )*& " !o& ) #) "& *o!er !o r"+& "&


5/42

"m$oe !o u&"e "& )or !o $ro&e*&"o! "& *re)&e !o o"*e "& ", "!

#e)# *o!&em$#)&"o!, "!o$er)&"ve, ) " "& +) !o& bee! $)e. %t is

therefore stric/en fro the statute boo/s and considered never to have e1isted

at all. +ot only the !arties but all !ersons are bound by the declaration of

unconstitutionality# which eans that no one ay thereafter invo/e it nor ay

the courts be !eritted to a!!ly it in subse)uent cases. %t is# in other words# a

total nullity.

The second or mo+ern vie is less stringent. Under this view# the court in

!assing u!on the )uestion of constitutionality does not annul or re!eal the

statute if it finds it in conflict with the Constitution. '& "m$# reue &o

re*o!"ze "& )! e&erm"!e &+e r"+& o &+e $)r&"e u& ) " u*+

&)&u&e +) !o e:"&e!*e. +e *our& m) "ve "& re)o! or "!or"!

or "re)r"! &+e #), bu& &+e e*""o! )e*& &+e $)r&"e o!# )!

&+ere " !o ume!& ))"!& &+e &)&u&e. The o!inion or reasons of the

court ay o!erate as a !recedent for the deterination of other siilar cases#

but it does not stri/e the statute fro the statute boo/s; it does not re!eal#

su!ersede# revo/e# or annul the statute. The !arties to the suit are concluded

by the judgent# but no one else is bound.

The orthodo1 view is e1!ressed in Article of the Civil Code# !roviding that

when the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution# the

forer shall be void and the latter shall govern. . . .

An otherwise valid law ay be held unconstitutional only insofar as it is

allowed to o!erate retros!ectively such as# in !ertinent cases# when it vitiates

contractually vested rights. To that e1tent# its retroactive a!!lication ay be

so declared invalid as i!airing the obligations of contracts. A judicial

declaration of invalidity# it is also true# ay not necessarily obliterate all the

effects and conse)uences of a void act occurring !rior to such a declaration.

The fact of the atter is that the e1!ro!riation cases# involved in this instance#

were still !ending a!!eal when the 2&A ruling was rendered and forthwith

invo/ed by said !arties. The a!!ellate court in this !articular case coitted

no error in its a!!ealed decision. The instant !etition is disissed.

Le)# Proe"o!- '! re; Cu!)!)!

18()r*+1954

FACTS 'F TH2 CAS2:

%n the anner of the !etitions for Adission to the 7ar of unsuccessfulcandidates of *,? to *80; Albino Cunanan et. al !etitioners.

%n recent years few controversial issues have aroused so uch !ublic interest

and concern as 5.A. - !o!ularly /nown as the D7ar Flun/ersN Act of *80.E

6enerally a candidate is deeed !assed if he obtains a general ave of 8O in

all subjects wLo falling below 8


6/42

defect in judgent of the court# and this !ower is not included in the !ower

granted by the Const. to Congress# it lies e1clusively wLin the judiciary.

5easons for Unconstitutionality:−

*. There was a anifest encroachent on the constitutional

res!onsibility of the Su!ree Court.

-. %t is in effect a judgent revo/ing the resolution of the court# and

only the S.C. ay revise or alter the# in atte!ting to do so 5.A. -

violated the Constitution.

0. That congress has e1ceeded its !ower to re!eal# alter# and

su!!leent the rules on adission to the bar @since the rules ade by

congress ust elevate the !rofession# and those rules !roulgated are

considered the bare iniu.

,. %t is a class legislation

8. Art. - of 5.A. - is not ebraced in the title of the law# contrary towhat the constitution enjoins# and being inse!arable fro the !rovisions of art.

*# the entire law is void.

H24:

Under the authority of the court:

*. That the !ortion of art. * of 5.A. - referring to the e1ainations of *,?

to *8- and all of art. - of the said law are unconstitutional and therefore void

and wLo force and effect.

-. The !art of A5T * that refers to the e1ainations subse)uent to the

a!!roval of the law @*80B *88 is valid and shall continue in force. @those

!etitions by the candidates who failed the bar fro *,? to *8- are denied#

and all the candidates who in the e1aination of *80 obtained a 62+ Ave. of

*.8O wLo getting a grade of below 8u!e 4, 1983

FACTS:

Section of 'rdinance +o. ?**9# SB?, !rovides that at least si1 @? !ercent of

the total area of the eorial !ar/ ceetery shall be set aside for charity

burial of deceased !ersons who are !au!ers. For several years# the section of

the 'rdinance was not enforced by city authorities but seven years after the

enactent of the ordinance# the QueIon City Council !assed a resolution

re)uesting the City 2ngineer# QueIon City# to sto! any further selling andLor

transaction of eorial !ar/ lots in QueIon City where the owners thereof

have failed to donate the re)uired ?O s!ace intended for !au!ers

burial.&ursuant to this !etition# the QueIon City 2ngineer notified res!ondent

Hilayang &ili!ino# %nc. in writing that Section of 'rdinance +o. ?**9# SB?,

would be enforced.

5es!ondent Hilayang &ili!ino then filed a !etition for declaratory relief#

!rohibition and andaus with !reliinary injunction see/ing to annul Section

of the 'rdinance alleging that it is contrary to the Constitution# the QueIon

City Charter# the ocal Autonoy Act# and the 5evised Adinistrative Code. %t

was declared by the CF% to be null and void. Hence# this !etition.

&etitioners argue that the ta/ing of the res!ondentKs !ro!erty is a valid and

reasonable e1ercise of !olice !ower and that the land is ta/en for a !ublic use.

'n the other hand# res!ondent Hilayang &ili!ino# %nc. contends that the

ta/ing or confiscation of !ro!erty is obvious because it restricts the use of the

!ro!erty such that it cannot be used for any reasonable !ur!ose and de!rivesthe owner of all beneficial use of his !ro!erty.The res!ondent also stresses

that the general welfare clause is not available as a source of !ower for the

ta/ing of the !ro!erty. The res!ondent !oints out that if an owner is de!rived

of his !ro!erty outright under the StateKs !olice !ower# the !ro!erty is

generally not ta/en for !ublic use but is urgently and suarily destroyed in

order to !roote the general welfare.

%SSU2:

"L+ Section of 'rdinance +o. ?*9# SB?, a valid e1ercise of the !olice !ower

H24:


7/42

+o. The Su!ree Court uoheld the decision of the Court of First %nstace.

The !ower to regulate does not include the !ower to !rohibit @&eo!le vs.

2sguerra# 9* &hi 00# (ega vs. Munici!al 7oard of %loilo# B??8# May *-#

*8,; 0 +.$. aw#


8/42

Such 5esolution was referred to C'A but the disburseent for itsi!leentation was disallowed. %n 4ecision +o. **8# C'A contends thatthere cannot be seen any !erce!tible connection or relation between theobjective sought to be attained and the alleged !ublic safety# general welfare#etc. of its inhabitants. Also# the coission stressed that 5esolution +o. ?< isstill subject to the liitation that the e1!enditure covered thereby should befor a !ublic !ur!ose# that is# for the benefit of the whole# if not the ajority# of the inhabitants of the Munici!ality and not for the benefit of only a few

individuals as in the !resent case. Hence# this !etition revolving around the!ivotal issue on whether or not 5esolution +o. ?< of the Munici!ality of Ma/ati is a valid e1ercise of !olice !ower under the generalwelfare clause.

%SSU2:

"L+ 5esolution +o. ?


9/42

&ower of city ayor to grant business !erits

The authority of city ayors to issue or grant licenses and business!erits is beyond cavil. %t is !rovided for by law.

However# the !ower to grant or issue licenses or business !eritsust always be e1ercised in accordance with law# with utost observance of

the rights of all concerned to due !rocess and e)ual !rotection of the law.

7ut can city ayor cancel business !erits or i!ose s!ecialconditionsR As a!tly discussed by the Solicitor 6eneral in his Coent# the!ower to issue licenses and !erits necessarily includes the corollary !ower torevo/e# withdraw or cancel the sae. And the !ower to revo/e or cancel#li/ewise includes the !ower to restrict through the i!osition of certainconditions.

4id the conditions or restrictions i!osed aount to a confiscation of the businessR 4istinction ust be ade between the grant of a license or!erit to do business and the issuance of a license to engage in the !ractice of a !articular !rofession. The first is usually granted by the local authorities and

the second is issued by the 7oard or Coission tas/ed to regulate the!articular !rofession. A business !erit authoriIes the !erson# natural orotherwise# to engage in business or soe for of coercial activity. A!rofessional license# on the other hand# is the grant of authority to a natural!erson to engage in the !ractice or e1ercise of his or her !rofession.

%n the case at bar# what is sought by !etitioner fro res!ondent CityMayor is a !erit to engage in the business of running an o!tical sho!. %t doesnot !ur!ort to see/ a license to engage in the !ractice of o!toetry as acor!orate body or entity# although it does have in its e!loy# !ersons who areduly licensed to !ractice o!toetry by the 7oard of 21ainers in '!toetry.

NEC2 VS. COR O0 APPEALSB9 SCRA 3 G.R. NO. 1815, (A% 1998

FACTS:

%n *# the governent filed for the e1!ro!riation of nechtsN !ro!erty. The governent wanted to use the land for the co!letion of theManila Flood Control and 4rainage &roject and the e1tension of the 24SAtowards 5o1as 7oulevard.

%n *9-# the City Treasurer of &asay discovered that the nechts failedto !ay real estate ta1es on the !ro!erty fro *9< to *9-. As a conse)uenceof this deficiency# the City Treasurer sold the !ro!erty at !ublic auction for the

sae aount of their deficiency ta1es. The highest bidders were res!ondentS!ouses Anastacio and Felisa 7abiera @the 7abieras and res!ondent S!ouses

Alejandro and Flor Sangalang @the Sangalangs. Subse)uently# Sangalang and7abiera sold the land to res!ondent Sale %nvestent Cor!oration.

'n February *# *90# the 7atasang &abansa !assed 7.&. 7lg. 0,<authoriIing the national governent to e1!ro!riate certain !ro!erties in &asayCity for the 24SA 21tension. The !ro!erty of the nechts was !art of thosee1!ro!riated under 7.&. 7lg. 0,


10/42

The nechts insist that although they were no longer the registeredowners of the !ro!erty at the tie Civil Case +o. 0- was filed# they stilloccu!ied the !ro!erty and therefore should have been joined as defendants inthe e1!ro!riation !roceedings. They clai that they still occu!ied the landwhen it was e1!ro!riated and therefore had a share.

Four onths earlier# in $anuary *N'O, "e&e

FACTS:

The constitutionality of etter of %nstruction @'% +o. 9?# a res!onse

to !rotracted oil crisis# banning the use of !rivate otor vehicles with H

@heavy and 2H @e1tra heavy !lates on wee/Bends and holidays# was assailed

for being allegedly violative of the due !rocess and e)ual !rotection

guarantees of the Constitution.

&etitioners also contends that Meorandu Circular +o. 0 issued by

herein res!ondents i!osing !enalties of fine# confiscation of the vehicle and

cancellation of license of owners of the above s!ecified vehicles found violating

such '%# is li/ewise unconstitutional# for being violative of the doctrine of

Dundue delegation of legislative !ower.E

5es!ondents denied the above allegations.

%SSU2:

"hether or not etter of %nstruction 9? as i!leented by

Meorandu Circular +o. 0 is violative of certain constitutional rights.

H24:

+o# the dis!uted regulatory easure is an a!!ro!riate res!onse to a!roble that !resses urgently for solution# wherein its reasonableness is


11/42

iediately a!!arent. Thus due !rocess is not ignored# uch less infringed.

The e1ercise of !olice !ower ay cut into the rights to liberty and !ro!erty for

the !rootion of the general welfare. Those adversely affected ay invo/e

the e)ual !rotection clause only if they can show a factual foundation for its

invalidity.

Moreover# since '% +o. 9? and MC +o. 0 were ado!ted !ursuant to

the and Trans!ortation and Traffic Code which contains a s!ecific !rovision as

to !enalties# the i!osition of a fine or the sus!ension of registration under

the conditions therein set forth is valid with the e1ce!tion of the i!ounding of

a vehicle.

CARLOS SPER?RG CORPORA'ON VS. ?SD?G.R. No. 166494>u!e 9, 7

FACTS:

5.A. ,0- @'ld Senior CitiIen Act !rovides that the -L 1989

Facts: Several !etitions are the root of the case:

a. A !etition alleging the constitutionality of &4 +o. -# 2' --9 and -- and

5A ??8. Subjects of the !etition are a Bhectare and 8 hectare 5iceland

wor/ed by four tenants. Tenants were declared full owners by 2' --9 as

)ualified farers under &4 -. The !etitioners now contend that &resident

A)uino usur!ed the legislatureNs !ower.

b. A !etition by landowners and sugar!lanters in (ictoriaNs Mill +egros

'ccidental against &roclaation *0* and 2' --. &roclaation *0* is the

creation of Agrarian 5efor Fund with initial fund of &8


12/42

%ssue: "hether or +ot the aforeentioned 2'Ns# &4# and 5A were

constitutional.

Held: The !roulgation of &4 - by &resident Marcos was valid in e1ercise of

&olice !ower and einent doain.

The !ower of &resident A)uino to !roulgate &roc. *0* and 2' --9 and --was authoriIed under Sec. ? of the Transitory &rovisions of the *9

Constitution. Therefore it is a valid e1ercise of &olice &ower and 2inent

4oain.

5A ??8 is li/ewise valid. The carrying out of the regulation under CA5&

becoes necessary to de!rive owners of whatever lands they ay own in

e1cess of the a1iu area allowed# there is definitely a ta/ing under the

!ower of einent doain for which !ayent of just co!ensation is

i!erative. The ta/ing conte!lated is not a ere liitation of the use of the

land. "hat is re)uired is the surrender of the title and the !hysical !ossession

of said e1cess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favour of the

farer.

A statute ay be sustained under the !olice !ower only if there is concurrence

of the lawful subject and the ethod.

Subject and !ur!ose of the Agrarian 5efor aw is valid# however what is to

be deterined is the ethod e!loyed to achieve it.

'O VS. V'?EOGRA( REGLAOR% /OAR? B151 SCRA 8 G.R. No. L-

75697 18 >u! 1987

Facts: The case is a !etition filed by !etitioner on behalf of videogra

o!erators adversely affected by &residential 4ecree +o. *9# DAn Act Creating

the (ideogra 5egulatory 7oard with broad !owers to regulate and su!ervise

the videogra industry.

A onth after the !roulgation of the said &residential 4ecree# the aended

the +ational %nternal 5evenue Code !rovided that:

S2C. *0,. (ideo Ta!es. There shall be collected on each !rocessed videoB

ta!e cassette# ready for !laybac/# regardless of length# an annual ta1 of five

!esos; &rovided# That locally anufactured or i!orted blan/ video ta!es shallbe subject to sales ta1.

Section *


13/42

!roliferation of !ornogra!hic video ta!es. And while it was also an objective of

the 42C522 to !rotect the ovie industry# the ta1 reains a valid i!osition.

"e find no clear violation of the Constitution which would justify us in

!ronouncing &residential 4ecree +o. *9 as unconstitutional and void. "hile

the underlying objective of the 42C522 is to !rotect the oribund ovie

industry# there is no )uestion that !ublic welfare is at botto of its enactent#

considering the unfair co!etition !osed by ra!ant fil !iracy; the erosionof the oral fiber of the viewing !ublic brought about by the availability of

unclassified and unreviewed video ta!es containing !ornogra!hic fils and

fils with brutally violent se)uences; and losses in governent revenues due

to the dro! in theatrical attendance# not to ention the fact that the activities

of video establishents are virtually unta1ed since ere !ayent of MayorKs

!erit and unici!al license fees are re)uired to engage in business.

"H252F'52# the instant &etition is hereby disissed. +o costs.

'C2ONG VS. 2ERNAN?E=B11 P2'L 1155 L-7995 31 (A% 1957

Facts: 5e!ublic Act **9< or coonly /nown as DAn Act to 5egulate the 5etail

7usinessE was !assed. The said law !rovides for a !rohibition against

foreigners as well as cor!orations owned by foreigners fro engaging fro

retail trade in our country. This was !rotested by the !etitioner in this case.

According to hi# the said law violates the international and treaty of the

&hili!!ines therefore it is unconstitutional. S!ecifically# the Treaty of Aity

between the &hili!!ines and China was violated according to hi.

%ssue: "hether or +ot 5e!ublic Act **9< is a valid e1ercise of !olice !ower.

Held: According to the Court# 5A **9< is a valid e1ercise of !olice !ower. %t

was also then !rovided that !olice !ower can not be bargained away through

the ediu of a treaty or a contract. The Court also !rovided that 5A **9<

was enacted to reedy a real and actual danger to national econoy !osed by

alien doinance and control. %f ever the law infringes u!on the said treaty# the

latter is always subject to )ualification or aendent by a subse)uent law and

the sae ay never curtain or restrict the sco!e of the !olice !ower of the

state.

L= VS. ARANEAB98 P+"# 148 G.R. No. L-7859 ?e* 1955

Facts: "alter utI# as the $udicial Adinistrator of the %ntestate 2state of

Antonio $aye edesa# see/s to recover fro $. Antonio Araneta# the

Collector of %nternal 5evenue# the su of oney !aid by the estate as ta1es#!ursuant to the Sugar Adjustent Act. Under Section 0 of said Act# ta1es are

levied on the owners or !ersons in control of the lands devoted to the

cultivation of sugar cane. Furtherore# Section ? states all the collections

ade under said Act shall be for aid and su!!ort of the sugar industry

e1clusively. utI contends that such !ur!ose is not a atter of !ublic concern

hence a/ing the ta1 levied for that cause unconstitutional and void. The

Court of First %nstance disissed his !etition# thus this a!!eal before the

Su!ree Court.

%ssue: "hether or +ot the ta1 levied under the Sugar Adjustent Act

@ Coonwealth Act 8? is unconstitutional.

Held:

The !rotection and !rootion of the sugar industry is a atter of !ublic

concern# it follows that the egislature ay deterine within reasonable

bounds what is necessary for its !rotection and e1!edient for its !rootion.

Here# the legislative discretion ust be allowed fully !lay# subject only to the

test of reasonableness; and it is not contended that the eans !rovided of the

law bear no relation to the objective !ursued or are o!!ressive in character. %f

objective and ethods are ali/e constitutionally valid# no reason is seen why

the state ay not levy ta1es to raise funds for their !rosecution and

attainent. Ta1ation ay be ade the i!leent of the stateKs !olice !ower.

That the ta1 to be levied should burden the sugar !roducers theselves can

hardly be a ground of co!laint; indeed# it a!!ears rational that the ta1 be

obtained !recisely fro those who are to be benefited fro the e1!enditure of

the funds derived fro it. The decision a!!ealed fro is affired# with costs

against a!!ellant.

The ta1 levied under the Sugar Adjustent Act is constitutional. The ta1 under

said Act is levied with a regulatory !ur!ose# to !rovide eans for the

rehabilitation and stabiliIation of the threatened sugar industry. Since sugar

!roduction is one of the great industries of our nation# its !rootion#

!rotection# and advanceent# therefore redounds greatly to the general


14/42

welfare. Hence# said objectives of the Act is a !ublic concern and is therefore

constitutional. %t follows that the egislature ay deterine within reasonable

bounds what is necessary for its !rotection and e1!edient for its !rootion. %f

objectives and ethods are ali/e constitutionally valid# no reason is seen why

the state ay not levy ta1es to raise funds for their !rosecution and

attainent. Ta1ation ay be ade with the i!leent of the stateNs !olice

!ower. %n addition# it is only rational that the ta1es be obtained fro those

that will directly benefit fro it. Therefore# the ta1 levied under the SugarAdjustent Act is held to be constitutional.

?EPAR(EN O0 E?CA'ON, CLRE AN? SPORS ?ECSF )!

?'RECOR O0 CENER 0OR E?CA'ONAL (EASRE(EN v.

RO/ERO RE% C. SAN ?'EGO )! >?GE ERES'A ?'=ON-CAPLONG,

"! +er *)$)*"& ) Pre""! >ue o &+e RC o V)#e!zue#)

G.R. No. 8957 ?e*ember 1, 1989

Facts: &rivate res!ondent San 4iego thrice flun/ed the +ational Medical

Adission Test @+MAT. U!on a!!lication again# herein !etitioner rejected the

a!!lication due to M2CS 'rder +o. *-# Series of *- which contains the rule:

A student shall be allowed only three @0 chances to ta/e the +MAT. After

three @0 successive failures# a student shall not be allowed to ta/e the +MAT

for the fourth tie. &rivate res!ondent went to the 5TC of (alenIuela# Metro

Manila# to co!el his adission to the test. 5es!ondent $udge granted the

!etition# and held that the !etitioner had been de!rived of his right to !ursue a

edical education through an arbitrary e1ercise of the !olice !ower.

%ssue: "hether there was i!ro!er e1ercise of !olice !ower

Held: +o.

%n Tablarin v. 6utierreI# the Court u!held the constitutionality of the +MAT as a

easure intended to liit the adission to edical schools only to those who

have initially !roved their co!etence and !re!aration for a edical

education.

The court found no reason why the rationale in the Tablarin case cannot a!!ly

to the case at bar. The issue raised in both cases is the acadeic !re!aration

of the a!!licant. This ay be gauged at least initially by the adission test

and# indeed with ore reliability# by the threeBflun/ rule. The latter cannot be

regarded any less valid than the forer in the regulation of the edical

!rofession.

There is no need to redefine here the !olice !ower of the State. Suffice it to

re!eat that the !ower is validly e1ercised if @a the interests of the !ublic

generally# as distinguished fro those of a !articular class# re)uire the

interference of the State# and @b the eans e!loyed are reasonably

necessary to the attainent of the object sought to be acco!lished and not

unduly o!!ressive u!on individuals. %n other words# the !ro!er e1ercise of the

!olice !ower re)uires the concurrence of a lawful subject and a lawful ethod.

The subject of the challenged regulation is certainly within the abit of the

!olice !ower. %t is the right and indeed the res!onsibility of the State to insure

that the edical !rofession is not infiltrated by inco!etents to who !atients

ay unwarily entrust their lives and health.

The ethod e!loyed by the challenged regulation is not irrelevant to the

!ur!ose of the law nor is it arbitrary or o!!ressive. The threeBflun/ rule is

intended to insulate the edical schools and ultiately the edical !rofessionfro the intrusion of those not )ualified to be doctors.

The !etition is granted. The decision of the res!ondent court dated $anuary *0#

*9# is reversed.

SANGALANG VS. 'AC

Short Facts:65 ,0?# ?0,# 9*9-# and 9--9* are efforts to enforce the deed

restrictions against s!ecific residents of $u!iter Street and# with res!ect to 659*9-# 5e!oso Street. The residents have allegedly converted their residencesinto coercial establishents @a restaurant in 65 ,0?# a ba/ery andcoffeesho! in 65 ?0,# an advertising fir in 65 9*9-; and a constructionco!any# a!!arently# in 65 9--9* in violation of the said restrictions. Theirother case# 65 **? is# on the other hand# a !etition to hold the vendoritself# Ayala Cor!oration @forerly Ma/ati 4evelo!ent Cor!oration# liable fortearing down the !erieter wall along $u!iter Street that had theretoforeclosed its coercial section fro the residences of 7elBAir (illage andushering in# as a conse)uence# the full coercialiIation of $u!iter Street# inviolation of the very restrictions it had authored. The Court of A!!ealsdisissed all 8 a!!eals on the basis !riarily of its ruling in ACB65 ???,#7elBAir (illage# %nc. v. HyBand 5ealty 4evelo!ent Cor!oration# et al.# inwhich the a!!ellate court e1!licitly rejected clais under the sae deedrestrictions as a result of 'rdinance 9* enacted by the 6overnent of the


15/42

Munici!ality of Ma/ati# as well as Co!rehensive oning 'rdinance 9*


16/42

therewith# cabs of odel ** were !haseBout in registration year *9; thoseof odel *-# in *; those of odel *0# in *9


17/42

as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the coonwealth# and

of the subjects of the sae.

The !olice !ower of the State# so far# has not received a full and co!lete

definition. %t ay be said# however# to be the right of the State# or state

functionary# to !rescribe regulations for the good order# !eace# health#

!rotection# cofort# convenience and orals of the counity# which do

not ... violate any of the !rovisions of the organic law.

%t =the !olice !ower> has for its object the i!roveent of social and

econoic conditioned affecting the counity at large and collectively with a

view to bring about he greatest good of the greatest nuber.Courts have

consistently and wisely declined to set any fi1ed liitations u!on subjects

calling for the e1ercise of this !ower. %t is elastic and is e1ercised fro tie to

tie as varying social conditions deand correction.

%t ay be said in a general way that the !olice !ower e1tends to all the great

!ublic needs. %t ay be !ut forth in aid of what is sanctioned by usage# or held

by the !revailing orality or strong and !re!onderant o!inion to be greatly

and iediately necessary to the !ublic welfare.

%t is uch easier to !erceive and realiIe the e1istence and sources of this

!olice !ower than to ar/ its boundaries# or to !rescribe liits to its e1ercise.

)b#)r"! v. Gu&"errez

Facts:

The !etitioners see/ adission into colleges or schools of edicine. However

the !etitioners either did not ta/e or did not successfully ta/e the +ational

Medical Adission Test @+MAT. 5e!ublic Act -09- as aended by 5.A. ,--,

and 8,?# /nown as the Medical Act of *8 created# aong others# the 7oard

of Medical 2ducation @7M2 whose functions include to deterine and

!rescribe re)uireents for adission into a recogniIed college of edicine

@Sec. 8 @a. Section of the sae Act re)uires fro a!!licants to !resent a

certificate of eligibility for entrance @cea to edical school fro the 7M2.

M2CS 'rder +o. 8-# s. *98# issued by the then Minister of 2ducation# Culture

and S!orts# established a unifor adission test called +ational Medical

Adission Test as additional re)uireent for issuance of a certificate of

eligibility.

&etitioners then filed with the 5TC a !etition for 4eclaratory $udgent and&rohibition with a !rayer Te!orary 5estraining 'rder and &reliinary

%njunction see/ing to enjoin the Sec. of educ# 7M2 fro enforcing Sec. 8@a

and @f of 5.A. ,--, and M2CS 'rder no. - and fro re)uiring the ta/ing and

!assing of the +MAT as condition for securing @cea.

%ssue:

"hether or not Sec. 8@a and @f of 5.A. ,--, and M2CS 'rder no. - violate

the constitution as they !rescribe an unfair# unreasonable and ine)uitablere)uireent

Held:

The legislative and adinistrative !rovisions i!ugned in this case constitute a

valid e1ercise of the !olice !ower of the state.

&erha!s the only issue that needs soe consideration is whether there is soe

reasonable relation between the !rescribing of !assing the +MAT as a

condition for adission to edical school on the one hand# and the securing of

the health and safety of the general counity# on the other hand. This

)uestion is !erha!s ost usefully a!!roached by recalling that the regulationof the !ractice of edicine in all its branches has long been recogniIed as a

reasonable ethod of !rotecting the health and safety of the !ublic. That the

!ower to regulate and control the !ractice of edicine includes the !ower to

regulate adission to the ran/s of those authoriIed to !ractice edicine# is

also well recogniIed. Thus# legislation and adinistrative regulations re)uiring

those who wish to !ractice edicine first to ta/e and !ass edical board

e1ainations have long ago been recogniIed as valid e1ercises of

governental !ower. Siilarly# the establishent of iniu edical

educational re)uireentsBi.e.# the co!letion of !rescribed courses in a

recogniIed edical schoolBfor adission to the edical !rofession# has also

been sustained as a legitiate e1ercise of the regulatory authority of the

state. "hat we have before us in the instant case is closely related: the

regulation of access to edical schools. M2CS 'rder +o. 8-# s. *98#

articulates the rationale of regulation of this ty!e: the i!roveent of the

!rofessional and technical )uality of the graduates of edical schools# by

u!grading the )uality of those aditted to the student body of the edical

schools. That u!grading is sought by selectivity in the !rocess of adission#

selectivity consisting# aong other things# of liiting adission to those who

e1hibit in the re)uired degree the a!titude for edical studies and eventually

for edical !ractice. The need to aintain# and the difficulties of aintaining#

high standards in our !rofessional schools in general# and edical schools in

!articular# in the current state of our social and econoic develo!ent# are

widely /nown.


18/42

The Court believes that the governent is entitled to !rescribe an adission

test li/e the +MAT as a eans of achieving its stated objective of u!grading

the selection of a!!licants into =our> edical schools and of i!rov=ing> the

)uality of edical education in the country.

ELECO((N'CA'ONS AN? /ROA?CAS AORNE%S O0 2EP2'L'PP'NES, 'NC. )! G(A NEDOR, 'NC.

v.

2E CO(('SS'ON ON ELEC'ONS

G.R. No. 139 A$r"# 1, 1998

FACTS

&etitioner Telecounications and 7roadcast Attorneys of the &hili!!ines

@T227A&# %nc. is an organiIation of lawyers of radio and television

broadcasting co!anies. They are suing as citiIens# ta1!ayers# and registeredvoters. The other !etitioner# 6MA +etwor/# %nc.# o!erates radio and television

broadcasting stations throughout the &hili!!ines under a franchise granted by

Congress. They challenge the validity of Section -:

Sec. -. Comelec time. The coission shall !rocure radio and

television tie to be /nown as Coelec Tie which shall be

allocated e)ually and i!artially aong the candidates within the area

of coverage of all radio and television stations. For this !ur!ose# the

franchise of all radio broadcasting and television stations are hereby

aended so as to !rovide radio or television tie# free of charge#

during the !eriod of the ca!aign. @Sec. ,?# *9 2C

on the ground @* that it ta/es !ro!erty without due !rocess of law and

without just co!ensation; @- that it denies radio and television broadcast

co!anies the e)ual !rotection of the laws; and @0 that it is in e1cess of the

!ower given to the C'M22C to su!ervise or regulate the o!eration of edia

of counication or inforation during the !eriod of election.

&etitioner contends that while Section < of the sae law re)uires C'M22C to

!rocure !rint s!ace in news!a!ers and agaIines with !ayent# Section -

!rovides that air tie shall be !rocured by C'M22C free of charge. Thus it

contends that Section - singles out radio and television stations to !rovide

free air tie.

%SSU2S:

*. "L+ res!ondents have locus standi

-. "L+ Sec. - of 7& 99* constitutes ta/ing of !ro!erty without due

!rocess of law and without just co!ensation.

H24:

*. T227A& has no locus standi. As citiIens# its clai has no standing.

Mebers of !etitioner have not shown that they have suffered har as a

result of the o!eration of - of 7.&. 7lg. 99*. +or do they have an

interest as registered voters since this case does not concern their right of

suffrage.Much less do they have an interest as ta1!ayers since this case

does not involve the e1ercise by Congress of its ta1ing or s!ending!ower.+or indeed as a cor!orate entity does T227A& have standing to

assert the rights of radio and television broadcasting co!anies.The ere

fact that T227A& is co!osed of lawyers in the broadcast industry does

not entitle the to bring this suit in their nae as re!resentatives of the

affected co!anies.

6MA +etwor/# %nc.# a!!ears to have the re)uisite standing. &etitioner

o!erates radio and television broadcast stations in the &hili!!ines affected

by the enforceent of - of 7.&. 7lg. 99* re)uiring radio and television

broadcast co!anies to !rovide free air tie to the C'M22C for the use

of candidates for ca!aign and other !olitical !ur!oses.&etitioner clais

that it suffered losses running to several illion !esos in !rovidingC'M22C Tie in connection with the *- !residential election and the

*8 senatorial election and that it stands to suffer even ore should it be

re)uired to do so again.

&etitionerNs arguent is without erit. All broadcasting# whether radio or

by television stations# is licensed by the governent. Airwave fre)uencies

have to be allocated as there are ore individuals who want to broadcast

that there are fre)uencies to assign. 5adio and television broadcasting

co!anies# which are given franchises# do not own the airwaves and

fre)uencies through which they transit broadcast signals and iages.

They are erely given the te!orary !rivilege to use the subject to theconstitutional !rovision that any such franchise or right granted . . . shall


19/42

be subject to aendent# alteration or re!eal by the Congress when the

coon good so re)uires.Thus# such e1ercise of the !rivilege ay

reasonably be burdened with the !erforance by the grantee of soe

for of !ublic service. %n granting the !rivilege to o!erate broadcast

stations and su!ervising radio and television stations# the state s!ends

considerable !ublic funds in licensing and su!ervising the.

The arguent that the subject law singles out radio and television stationsto !rovide free air tie as against news!a!ers and agaIines which

re)uire !ayent of just co!ensation for the !rint s!ace they ay

!rovide is li/ewise without erit. 5egulation of the broadcast industry

re)uires s!ending of !ublic funds which it does not do in the case of !rint

edia. To re)uire the broadcast industry to !rovide free air tie for

C'M22C is a fair e1change for what the industry gets.

As radio and television broadcast stations do not own the airwaves# no

!rivate !ro!erty is ta/en by the re)uireent that they !rovide air tie to

the C'M22C.

PEOPLE VS. 0A>AR?OG.R. No. L-117Auu& 9, 1958

FACTS:

4uring the incubency of defendantBa!!ellant $uan F. Fajardo as

ayor of the unici!ality of 7aao# Caarines Sur# the unici!al council

!assed the ordinance in )uestion stating aong others that construction of a

building# which will destroy the view of the !laIa# shall not be allowed andtherefore be destroyed at the e1!ense of the owner# enacted an ordinance.

Moreover# it redirects the grant of !erission to the ayor.

After his incubencyHe# a!!ellant filed a written re)uest with the

incubent unici!al ayor for a !erit to construct a building adjacent to

their gasoline station on a !arcel of land registered in FajardoKs nae# located

along the national highway and se!arated fro the !ublic !laIa by a cree/.

The re)uest was denied# for the reason aong others that the !ro!osed

building would destroy the view or beauty of the !ublic !laIa. 4efendants

reiterated their re)uest for a building !erit# but again the ayor turned down

the re)uest. "hereu!on# a!!ellants !roceeded with the construction of thebuilding without a !erit# because they needed a !lace of residence very

badly# their forer house having been destroyed by a ty!hoon and hitherto

they had been living on leased !ro!erty. Thereafter# defendants were charged

in violation of the ordinance and subse)uently convicted.

Hence this a!!eal.

%ssue:

"hether or not the ordinance is a valid e1ercise of !olice !ower.

Held:

The ordinance is unreasonable and o!!ressive# in that it o!erates to!eranently de!rive a!!ellants of the right to use their own !ro!erty; hence#it overste!s the bounds of !olice !ower# and aounts to a ta/ing of a!!ellants!ro!erty without just co!ensation.

The State ay not# under the guise of !olice !ower# !eranently

divest owners of the beneficial use of their !ro!erty and !ractically confiscate

the solely to !reserve or assure the aesthetic a!!earance of the counity.

As the case now stands# every structure that ay be erected on a!!ellantsK

land# regardless of its own beauty# stands condened under the ordinance in

)uestion# because it would interfere with the view of the !ublic !laIa fro the

highway. The a!!ellants would# in effect# be constrained to let their land

reain idle and unused for the obvious !ur!ose for which it is best suited#

being urban in character. To legally achieve that result# the unici!ality ust

give a!!ellants just co!ensation and an o!!ortunity to be heard.

/AR?'LLON VS. /ARANGA% (AL'S'G.R. No. 146886A$r"# 3, 3

FACTS:

7rgy Masili in Calaba aguna wanted a lot on which a ultiB!ur!osehall will be constructed# so it offered to buy 7ardillonKs *,, s). . lot for &h!-


20/42

'ct *9# *: The second co!laint for einent doain was filedwith the Calaba 5TC by Masili. 7ardillon o!!osed the co!laint thru Motionto 4isiss# alleging res judicata.

5TC denied otion to disiss# saying that MTC had no jurisdictionover the first co!laint. $uly *. 'NG AN?

SONS CO(PAN%, 'NC.,

G.R. No. 175983A$r"# 16, 9

1

FACTS:

&etitioner wanted to ac)uire a five @8Bs)uare eter lot occu!ied by

its !roduction well. The lot is !art of res!ondentNs !ro!erty located in 7anilad#

Cebu City. &etitioner initiated negotiations with res!ondent $. ing and Sons

Co!any# %nc. for the voluntary sale of the latterNs !ro!erty. 5es!ondent did

not ac)uiesce to !etitionerNs !ro!osal. After the negotiations had failed#

!etitioner !ursuant to its charter9

initiated e1!ro!riation !roceedings through7oard 5esolution +o.


21/42

*.&etitioner has the legal ca!acity to institute the e1!ro!riation co!laint.

As an inherent sovereign !rerogative# the !ower to e1!ro!riate

!ertains to the legislature. However# Congress ay# as in fact it often does#

delegate the e1ercise of the !ower to governent agencies# !ublic officials and

)uasiB!ublic entities. &etitioner is one of the nuerous governent offices so

e!owered. Under its charter# &.4. +o. *9# as aended#- !etitioner is

e1!licitly granted the !ower of einent doain.

For !etitioner to e1ercise its !ower of einent doain# two

re)uireents should be et# naely: first# its board of directors !assed a

resolution authoriIing the e1!ro!riation# and; second# the e1ercise of the

!ower of einent doain was subjected to review by the "UA. %n this case#

!etitionerNs board of directors a!!roved on - February -


22/42

"hether there is genuine necessity to e1!ro!riate &&MCNs !ro!erty forthe !ur!ose of a connecting road# in light of other a!!ro!riate lots for the!ur!ose.

Held:

There is no )uestion here as to the right of the State to ta/e !rivate!ro!erty for !ublic use u!on !ayent of just co!ensation. "hat is

)uestioned is the e1istence of a genuine necessity therefore.

The foundation of the right to e1ercise the !ower of einent doain isgenuine necessity and that necessity ust be of a !ublic character.Condenation of !rivate !ro!erty is justified only if it is for the !ublic goodand there is a genuine necessity of a !ublic character. Conse)uently# the courtshave the !ower to re)uire into the legality of the e1ercise of the right of einent doain and to deterine whether there is a genuine necessitytherefor. The governent ay not ca!riciously choose what !rivate !ro!ertyshould be ta/en. "ith due recognition then of the !ower of Congress todesignate the !articular !ro!erty to be ta/en and how uch thereof ay becondened in the e1ercise of the !ower of e1!ro!riation# it is still a judicial)uestion whether in the e1ercise of such co!etence# the !arty adversely

affected is the victi of !artiality and !rejudice. That the e)ual !rotectionclause will not allow.

The S!ecial CoitteeKs 5e!ort# dated *< March *?# stated thatthere is no genuine necessity for the Munici!ality of Meycauayan toe1!ro!riate the aforesaid !ro!erty of the &hili!!ine &i!es and MerchandiIingCor!oration for use as a !ublic road. Considering that in the vicinity there areother available road and vacant lot offered for sale situated siilarly as the lotin )uestion and lying idle# unli/e the lot sought to be e1!ro!riated which wasfound by the Coittee to be badly needed by the co!any as a site for itsheavy e)ui!ent after it is fenced together with the adjoining vacant lot# the justification to conden the sae does not a!!ear to be very i!erative andnecessary and would only cause unjustified daage to the fir. The desire of the Munici!ality of Meycauayan to build a !ublic road to decongest the volue

of traffic can be fully and better attained by ac)uiring the other available roadsin the vicinity aybe at lesser costs without causing har to an establishentdoing legitiate business therein. 'r# the unici!ality ay see/ to e1!ro!riatea !ortion of the vacant lot also in the vicinity offered for sale for a wider !ublicroad to attain decongestion of traffic because as observed by the Coittee#the lot of the Cor!oration sought to be ta/en will only accoodate a oneBwaytraffic lane and therefore# will not suffice toi!rove and decongest the flow of traffic and !edestrians in the Malhacanarea. There is absolutely no showing in the !etition why the ore a!!ro!riatelot for the !ro!osed road which was offered for sale has not been the subjectof the unici!alitiesKs atte!t to e1!ro!riate assuing there is a real need foranother connecting road.

Re$ub#"* v. L) Ore! ?e PP. /e!e"*&"!o ?e 0"#"$"!),G.R. No. L-179, 0ebru)r 8, 1961

To ease and solve the daily traffic congestion on egarda Street# the 6overnentdrew !lansto e1tend AIcarraga street fro its junction with Mendiola street# u!to the Sta. Mesa 5otonda# Sa!aloc# Manila. The !etitioner in this case is the 5e!ublic of the &hili!!ines through the 'ffice of the Solicitor 6eneral and the res!ondent is a 'rdende &&. 7enedictinos de Fili!inas# a doestic religious cor!oration that owns the San 7eda

College.

FACTS:

To ease and solve the daily traffic congestion on egarda Street# the 6overnentdrew !lans to e1tend AIcarraga St. @now 5ecto fro its junction with Mendiola St.# u!to the Sta. Mesa 5otonda# Sa!aloc# Manila. To carry out this !lan it offered to buy a !ortionof a!!ro1iately ?#


23/42

should have been given an o!!ortunity to !resent their res!ective evidence u!on these factorsand others that ight be of direct or indirect hel! in deterining the vital )uestion of factinvolved# naely# the need to o!en the e1tension of AIcarraga street to ease and solve thetraffic congestion on egarda street.

"H252F'52# the a!!ealed order of disissal is set aside and the !resent case isreanded to the trial court for further !roceedings in accordance with this decision.

C"& o ()!"#) v. C+"!ee Commu!"& o ()!"#)BGR14355, 31 O*&ober 1919

Facts:

'n ** 4eceber# **?# the city of Manila !resented a !etition in the

Court of First %nstance @CF% of Manila !raying that certain lands @e1tension of

5iIal Avenue within 7loc/ 0 of the district of 7inondo be e1!ro!riated for the

!ur!ose of constructing a !ublic i!roveent. The Counidad de Chinos deManila =Chinese Counity of Manila> alleged in its answer that it was a

cor!oration organiIed and e1isting under and by virtue of the laws of the

&hili!!ine %slands# having for its !ur!ose the benefit and general welfare of the

Chinese Counity of the City of Manila; that it was the owner of !arcels one

and two of the land described in !aragra!h - of the co!laint; that it denied

that it was either necessary or e1!edient that the said !arcels be e1!ro!riated

for street !ur!oses; that e1isting street and roads furnished a!le eans of

counication for the !ublic in the district covered by such !ro!osed

e1!ro!riation; that if the construction of the street or road should be

considered a !ublic necessity# other routes were available# which would fully

satisfy the CityKs !ur!oses# at uch less e1!ense and without disturbing the

resting !laces of the dead; that it had a Torrens title for the lands in )uestion;

that the lands in )uestion had been used by the Chinese Counity for

ceetery !ur!oses; that a great nuber of Chinese were buried in said

ceetery; that if said e1!ro!riation be carried into effect# it would disturb the

resting !laces of the dead# would re)uire the e1!enditure of a large su of

oney in the transfer or reoval of the bodies to soe other !lace or site and

in the !urchase of such new sites# would involve the destruction of e1isting

onuents and the erection of new onuents in their stead# and would

create irre!arable loss and injury to the Chinese Counity and to all those

!ersons owning and interested in the graves and onuents which would

have to be destroyed; that the City was without right or authority to

e1!ro!riate said ceetery or any !art or !ortion thereof for street !ur!oses;and that the e1!ro!riation# in fact# was not necessary as a !ublic

i!roveent. %ldefonso Tabunting# answering the !etition# denied each and

every allegation of the co!laint# and alleged that said e1!ro!riation was not

a !ublic i!roveent. FeliIa Conce!cion de 4elgado# with her husband# $ose

Maria 4elgado# and each of the other defendants# answering se!arately#

!resented substantially the s e defense as that !resented by the Counidad

de Chinos de Manila and %ldefonso Tabunting. $udge Si!licio del 5osario

decided that there was no necessity for the e1!ro!riation of the stri! of land

and absolved each and all of the defendants @Chinese Counity# Tabunting#s!ouses 4elgado# et. al. fro all liability under the co!laint# without any

finding as to costs. Fro the judgent# the City of Manila a!!ealed.

%ssue:

"hether !ortions of the Chinese Ceetery# a !ublic ceetery# ay be

e1!ro!riated for the construction of a !ublic i!roveent.

Held:

+o. Section -,- of Act -** @Charter of the city of Manila !rovides

that the city @Manila ay conden !rivate !ro!erty for !ublic use. TheCharter of the city of Manila# however# contains no !rocedure by which the said

authority ay be carried into effect. Act *< !rovides for how right of einent

doain ay be e1ercised. Section -,* of said Act !rovides that the

6overnent of the &hili!!ine %slands# or of any !rovince or de!artent

thereof# or of any unici!ality# and any !erson# or !ublic or !rivate cor!oration

having# by law# the right to conden !rivate !ro!erty for !ublic use# shall

e1ercise that right in the anner !rescribed by Section -,- to -,?. The right

of e1!ro!riation is not an inherent !ower in a unici!al cor!oration# and

before it can e1ercise the right soe law ust e1ist conferring the !ower u!on

it. "hen the courts coe to deterine the )uestion# they ust not only find

@a that a law or authority e1ists for the e1ercise of the right of einent

doain# but @b also that the right or authority is being e1ercised inaccordance with the law. Herein# the ceetery in )uestion is !ublic @a

ceetery used by the general counity# or neighborhood# or church and

sees to have been established under governental authority# as the S!anish

6overnorB6eneral# in an order creating the sae. "here a ceetery is o!en

to the !ublic# it is a !ublic use and no !art of the ground can be ta/en for

other !ublic uses under a general authority. To disturb the ortal reains of

those endeared to us in life soeties becoes the sad duty of the living;

but# e1ce!t in cases of necessity# or for laudable !ur!oses# the sanctity of the

grave# the last resting !lace of our friends# should be aintained# and the

!reventative aid of the courts should be invo/ed for that object. "hile

ceeteries and se!ulchers and the !laces of the burial of the dead are still

within the eory and coand of the active care of the living; while they


24/42

are still devoted to !ious uses and sacred regard# it is difficult to believe that

even the legislature would ado!t a law e1!ressly !roviding that such !laces#

under such circustances# should be violated.

REP/L'C VS. PL?

Facts: This case !ertains to Section ,< @e of the &ublic Service Act @&SA# as

aended on March *8# *9,# !ursuant to 7atas &abansa 7lg. 0-8# which

authoriIed the +TC to collect fro !ublic telecounications co!anies

Su!ervision and 5egulation Fees @S5F of &h& )!u)r 1991+"r ?"v""o!

Facts:

The +ational &ower Cor!oration @+A&'C'5# a governent owned andcontrolled entity# in accordance with Coonwealth Act *-


25/42

then were e!owered to receive evidence# conduct ocular ins!ection of the!reises# and thereafter# !re!are their a!!raisals as to the fair and justco!ensation to he !aid to the owners of the lots. Hearings were conse)uentlyheld before said coissioners and during their hearings# the case of theHeirs of +atalia &aule was aicably settled by virtue of a 5ight of "ay 6rante1ecuted by 6uadalu!e Sangalang for herself and in behalf of her coBheirs infavor of +A&'C'5. The case against Matias CruI was earlier decided by thecourt# thereby leaving only the case against the s!ouses Malit and 6utierreI

still to be resolved. Accordingly# the coissioners subitted their individualre!orts. "ith the re!orts subitted# the lower court rendered a decision#ordering +A&'C'5 to !ay Malit and 6utierreI the su of &*< !er s)uareeter as the fair and reasonable co!ensation for the rightBofBway easeentof the affected area# which is ?< s)uares# or a total su of &#?


26/42

!au!ers and the !rootion of health# orals# good order# safety# or the

general welfare of the !eo!le. The ordinance is actually a ta/ing without

co!ensation of a certain area fro a !rivate ceetery to benefit !au!ers

who are charges of the unici!al cor!oration. %nstead of building or

aintaining a !ublic ceetery for this !ur!ose# the city !asses the burden to

!rivate ceeteries. The e1!ro!riation without co!ensation of a !ortion of

!rivate ceeteries is not covered by Section *-@t of 5e!ublic Act 80# the

5evised Charter of QueIon City which e!owers the city council to !rohibit theburial of the dead within the center of !o!ulation of the city and to !rovide for

their burial in a !ro!er !lace subject to the !rovisions of general law regulating

burial grounds and ceeteries. "hen the ocal 6overnent Code# 7atas

&abansa 00 !rovides in Section * @) that a Sangguniang !anlungsod

ay !rovide for the burial of the dead in such !lace and in such anner as

!rescribed by law or ordinance it si!ly authoriIes the city to !rovide its own

city owned land or to buy or e1!ro!riate !rivate !ro!erties to construct !ublic

ceeteries. This has been the law and !ractice in the !ast and it continues to

the !resent. 21!ro!riation# however# re)uires !ayent of just co!ensation.

The )uestioned ordinance is different fro laws and regulations re)uiring

owners of subdivisions to set aside certain areas for streets# !ar/s#

!laygrounds# and other !ublic facilities fro the land they sell to buyers of

subdivision lots. The necessities of !ublic safety# health# and convenience are

very clear fro said re)uireents which are intended to insure the

develo!ent of counities with salubrious and wholesoe environents.

The beneficiaries of the regulation# in turn# are ade to !ay by the subdivision

develo!er when individual lots are sold to hoeowners.

Re$ub#"* v. V). e C)&e##v"

GR L-6, 15 Auu& 1974

0ACS;

1 >u# 1947 B &etitioner 5e!ublic of the &hili!!ines @&hili!!ine Air Force

occu!ied the land situated in Floridablanca# &a!anga of Caren M. vda. de

Castellvi# the judicial adinistratri1 of the estate of the late Alfonso de

Castellvi since by virtue of a contract of lease.

3 >u!e 1956 B 7efore the e1!iration of the contract of lease# the 5e!ublic

sought to renew the sae but Castellvi refused# intending to subdivide the lots

for sale to the general !ublic; filed civil case for ejectent of AF&.

6 >u!e 1959P %n view of the difficulty for the ary to vacate the !reises

due to !eranent installations and other facilities# AF& filed e1!ro!riation

!roceedings and was !laced in !ossession of the lands on 1 Auu& 1959.

%n its co!laint# the 5e!ublic alleged# aong other things# that the fair ar/et

value of the aboveBentioned lands# according to the Coittee on A!!raisal

for the &rovince of &a!anga# was not ore than &-#


27/42

to occu!y the !ro!erty as lessee. 2leents 7 V 2 were not !resent when

5e!ublic entered the !ro!erties in *,.

2leentsL5e)uisites of Dta/ingE of !ro!erty for !ur!oses of einent doain:

A. 21!ro!riator ust enter a !rivate !ro!erty.

7. 2ntrance into !rivate !ro!erty ust be for ore than a oentary !eriod.

C. 2ntry into the !ro!erty should be under warrant or color of legal authority.

4. &ro!erty ust be devoted to a !ublic use or otherwise inforally

a!!ro!riated or injuriously affected.

2. UtiliIation of the !ro!erty for !ublic use ust be in such a way as to oust

the owner and de!rive hi of all beneficial enjoyent of the !ro!erty.

-. Under Section , of 5ule ? of the 5ules of Court# the Djust co!ensationE

is to be deterined as of the date of the filing of the co!laint.

This Court has ruled that when the ta/ing of the !ro!erty sought to be

e1!ro!riated coincides with the coenceent of the e1!ro!riation

!roceedings# or ta/es !lace subse)uent to the filing of the co!laint for

einent doain# the just co!ensation should be deterined as of the date of

the filing of the co!laint. Herein# it is undis!uted that the 5e!ublic was

!laced in !ossession of the Castellvi !ro!erty# by authority of the court# on *<

August *8.

The Dta/ingE of the Castellvi !ro!erty for the !ur!oses of deterining the just

co!ensation to be !aid should not be !aid based on *, fair ar/et value

aount.

/)"* u"e#"!e "! e&erm"!"! &+e v)#ue o &+e #)! &o be

e:$ro$r")&e;

• Sae considerations are to be regarded as in a sale of !ro!erty between

!rivate !arties.

• 2stiated by reference to the use for which the !ro!erty is suitable#

having regard to the e1isting business or wants of the counity# or such

as ay be reasonably e1!ected in the iediate future.

%n e1!ro!riation !roceedings# therefore# the owner of the land has the right to

its value for the use for which it would bring the ost in the ar/et.

"e have arrived at the conclusion that the !rice of &*


28/42

the Coission for disseination of vital election inforationK aong others.

A!!arently in i!leentation of the 5esolution# Coelec through

Coissioner 5egalado 2. Maabong sent identical letters# dated -- March

*8# to various !ublishers of news!a!ers li/e the 7usiness "orld# the

&hili!!ine Star# the Malaya and the &hili!!ine Ties $ournal# all ebers of

&hili!!ine &ress %nstitute @&&%# advising the latter that they are directed to

!rovide free !rint s!ace of not less than *L- !age for use as Coelec S!ace

or siilar to the !rint su!!ort which the latter have e1tended during the **May *- synchroniIed elections which was - full !ages for each !olitical !arty

fielding senatorial candidates# fro ? March to ? May *8# to a/e /nown to

their )ualifications# their stand on !ublic issues and their !latfors and

!rogras of governent. &&% filed a &etition for Certiorari and &rohibition with

!rayer for the issuance of a Te!orary restraining order before the Su!ree

Court to assail the validity of 5esolution -- and the corres!onding directive

dated -- March *8.


29/42

%ssue:

"hether there was necessity for the ta/ing# i.e. co!elling !rint edia

co!anies to donate DCoelec s!ace.E

Held:

To co!el !rint edia co!anies to donate Coelec s!ace of the

diensions s!ecified in Section - of 5esolution -- @not less than *L- &age#aounts to ta/ing of !rivate !ersonal !ro!erty for !ublic use or !ur!oses.Section - failed to s!ecify the intended fre)uency of such co!ulsorydonation. The e1tent of the ta/ing or de!rivation is not insubstantial; this isnot a case of a de iniis te!orary liitation or restraint u!on the use of !rivate !ro!erty. The onetary value of the co!ulsory donation# easuredby the advertising rates ordinarily charged by news!a!er !ublishers whether incities or in nonBurban areas# ay be very substantial indeed. The ta/ing of !rint s!ace here sought to be effected ay first be a!!raised under the !ublicof e1!ro!riation of !rivate !ersonal !ro!erty for !ublic use. The thresholdre)uisites for a lawful ta/ing of !rivate !ro!erty for !ublic use need to bee1ained here: one is the necessity for the ta/ing; another is the legalauthority to effect the ta/ing. The eleent of necessity for the ta/ing has not

been shown by the Coelec. %t has not been suggested that the ebers of &&% are unwilling to sell !rint s!ace at their noral rates to Coelec forelection !ur!oses. Siilarly# it has not been suggested# let alonedeonstrated# that Coelec has been granted the !ower of iinent doaineither by the Constitution or by the legislative authority. A reasonablerelationshi! between that !ower and the enforceent and adinistration of election laws by Coelec ust be shown; it is not casually to be assued.That the ta/ing is designed to subserve !ublic use is not contested by &&%.'nly that# under Section 0 of 5esolution --# the free Coelec s!acesought by the Coelec would be used not only for inforing the !ublic aboutthe identities# )ualifications and !rogras of governent of candidates forelective office but also for disseination of vital election inforation@including# !resuably# circulars# regulations# notices# directives# etc. issuedby Coelec. %t sees to the Court a atter of judicial notice that governentoffices and agencies @including the Su!ree Court si!ly !urchase !rints!ace# in the ordinary course of events# when their rules and regulations#circulars# notices and so forth need officially to be brought to the attention of the general !ublic. The ta/ing of !rivate !ro!erty for !ublic use it# of course#authoriIed by the Constitution# but not without !ayent of justco!ensation. Thus# although there is nothing at all to !revent news!a!erand agaIine !ublishers fro voluntarily giving free !rint s!ace to Coelecfor the !ur!oses conte!lated in 5esolution --; Section - of resolution-- does not !rovide a constitutional basis for co!elling !ublishers# againsttheir will to !rovide free !rint s!ace for Coelec !ur!oses. Section - does notconstitute a valid e1ercise of the !ower of einent doain.

ELECO((N'CA'ONS AN? /ROA?CAS AORNE%S O0 2E P2'LS.

VS. CO(ELEC B89 SCRA 337 G.R. NO. 139 1 APR 1998

0)*&; &etitioner Telecounications and 7roadcast Attorneys of the

&hili!!ines# %nc. @T227A& is an organiIation of lawyers of radio and television

broadcasting co!anies. %t was declared to be without legal standing to sue in

this case as# aong other reasons# it was not able to show that it was to suffer

fro actual or threatened injury as a result of the subject law. &etitioner 6MA+etwor/# on the other hand# had the re)uisite standing to bring the

constitutional challenge. &etitioner o!erates radio and television broadcast

stations in the &hili!!ines affected by the enforceent of Section -# 7.&. +o.

99*.

&etitioners challenge the validity of Section -# 7.&. +o. 99* which !rovides:

DCoelec TieB The Coission shall !rocure radio and television tie to be

/nown as the DCoelec TieE which shall be allocated e)ually and i!artially

aong the candidates within the area of coverage of all radio and television

stations. For this !ur!ose# the franchise of all radio broadcasting and television

stations are hereby aended so as to !rovide radio or television tie# free of charge# during the !eriod of ca!aign.E

&etitioner contends that while Section < of the sae law re)uires C'M22C to

!rocure !rint s!ace in news!a!ers and agaIines with !ayent# Section -

!rovides that air tie shall be !rocured by C'M22C free of charge. Thus it

contends that Section - singles out radio and television stations to !rovide

free air tie.

&etitioner clais that it suffered losses running to several illion !esos in

!roviding C'M22C Tie in connection with the *- !residential election and

*8 senatorial election and that it stands to suffer even ore should it be

re)uired to do so again this year. &etitioners clai that the !riary source of

revenue of the radio and television stations is the sale of air tie to

advertisers and to re)uire these stations to !rovide free air tie is to authoriIe

unjust ta/ing of !rivate !ro!erty. According to !etitioners# in *- it lost

&--#,9#8?


30/42

broadcast co!anies the e)ual !rotection of the laws.

@- "hether or not Section - of 7.&. +o. 99* constitutes ta/ing of !ro!erty

without due !rocess of law and without just co!ensation.

2e#; &etitionerNs arguent is without erit. All broadcasting# whether radio

or by television stations# is licensed by the governent. Airwave fre)uencieshave to be allocated as there are ore individuals who want to broadcast that

there are fre)uencies to assign. 5adio and television broadcasting co!anies#

which are given franchises# do not own the airwaves and fre)uencies through

which they transit broadcast signals and iages. They are erely given the

te!orary !rivilege to use the. Thus# such e1ercise of the !rivilege ay

reasonably be burdened with the !erforance by the grantee of soe for of

!ublic service. %n granting the !rivilege to o!erate broadcast stations and

su!ervising radio and television stations# the state s!ends considerable !ublic

funds in licensing and su!ervising the.

The arguent that the subject law singles out radio and television stations to

!rovide free air tie as against news!a!ers and agaIines which re)uire!ayent of just co!ensation for the !rint s!ace they ay !rovide is li/ewise

without erit. 5egulation of the broadcast industry re)uires s!ending of !ublic

funds which it does not do in the case of !rint edia. To re)uire the broadcast

industry to !rovide free air tie for C'M22C is a fair e1change for what the

industry gets.

As radio and television broadcast stations do not own the airwaves# no !rivate

!ro!erty is ta/en by the re)uireent that they !rovide air tie to the

C'M22C.

Sumu#o! v. Guerrero BGR L-48685, 3 Se$&ember 1987E! /)!*,Cor&e >F; 1 *o!*ur

Facts:

'n 8 4eceber * the +ational Housing Authority @+HA filed a co!laintfor e1!ro!riation of !arcels of land covering a!!ro1iately -8 hectares# @inAnti!olo 5iIal including the lots of orenIo Suulong and 2ilia (idanesB7alaoing with an area of ?#?? s)uare eters and 0#000 s)uare etersres!ectively. The land sought to be e1!ro!riated were valued by the +HA at&*.


31/42

However# as !reviously held by the Su!ree Court# the !rovisions of suchdecrees on just co!ensation are unconstitutional. Herein# the Court finds thatthe 'rders issued !ursuant to the corollary !rovisions of those decreesauthoriIing iediate ta/ing without notice and hearing are violative of due!rocess.

Prov"!*e o C)m)r"!e Sur v. Cour& o A$$e)# BGR 1315, 17 ()

19930"r& ?"v""o!,


32/42

for a !ublic !ur!ose. The establishent of a !ilot develo!ent center wouldinure to the direct benefit and advantage of the !eo!le of the &rovince of Caarines Sur. 'nce o!erational# the center would a/e available to thecounity invaluable inforation and technology on agriculture# fishery andthe cottage industry. Ultiately# the livelihood of the farers# fisheren andcraftsen would be enhanced. The housing !roject also satisfies the !ublic!ur!ose re)uireent of the Constitution. Housing is a basic huan need.Shortage in housing is a atter of state concern since it directly and

significantly affects !ublic health# safety# the environent and in su thegeneral welfare. Thus# the decision of the Court of A!!eals is set aside insofaras it @a nullifies the trial courtKs order allowing the &rovince of Caarines Surto ta/e !ossession of the !ro!erty of the San $oa)uins; @b orders the trialcourt to sus!end the e1!ro!riation !roceedings; and @c re)uires the &rovinceof Caarines Sur to obtain the a!!roval of the 4e!artent of Agrarian 5eforto convert or reclassify the !ro!erty of the San $oa)uins !ro!erty froagricultural to nonBagricultural use.

(o) v. Cour& o A$$e)# BGR 17916, 0ebru)r 1997Se*o!?"v""o!, Romero >F; 4 *o!*ur

Facts:

'n -0 $uly *9# the Sangguniang 7ayan of the Munici!ality of 7unawan inAgusan del Sur !assed 5esolution ,0B9# AuthoriIing the Munici!al Mayor to%nitiate the &etition for 21!ro!riation of a * Hectare &ortion of ot ?*09B&lsB,Along the +ational Highway 'wned by &ercival Moday for the Site of 7unawanFarers Center and 'ther 6overnent S!orts Facilities. %n due tie# the5esolution was a!!roved by then Munici!al Mayor Anuncio C. 7ustillo andtransitted to the Sangguniang &anlalawigan for its a!!roval.

'n ** Se!teber *9# the Sangguniang &anlalawigan disa!!rovedsaid 5esolution and returned it with the coent that e1!ro!riation isunnecessary considering that there are still available lots in 7unawan for theestablishent of the governent center. The Munici!ality of 7unawan

subse)uently filed a &etition for 2inent 4oain against &ercival Modaybefore the 5egional Trial Court @5TC at &ros!eridad# Agusan del Sur. Theco!laint was later aended to include the registered owners# &ercivalModayKs !arents# otico @W and eonora Moday# as !arty defendants. 'n ?March **# the unici!ality filed a Motion to Ta/e or 2nter U!on the&ossession of Subject Matter of This Case stating that it had already de!ositedwith the unici!al treasurer the necessary aount in accordance with Section-# 5ule ? of the 5evised 5ules of Court and that it would be in thegovernentKs best interest for the unici!ality to be allowed to ta/e!ossession of the !ro!erty. 4es!ite ModayKs o!!osition and after a hearing onthe erits# the 5TC granted the unici!alityKs otion to ta/e !ossession of theland; holding that the Sangguniang &anlalawiganKs failure to declare theresolution invalid leaves it effective# and that the duty of the Sangguniang&anlalawigan is erely to review the ordinances and resolutions !assed by theSangguniang 7ayan under Section -


33/42

e:$ro$r")&"o! $ro*ee"! )! u$o! m)"

Constitutional Law Cases 2nd Batch

Documents