Download Constitutional Law II Reviewer and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Constitutional Law in PDF only on Docsity!
Constitutional II - Reviewer Notes
General Considerations
I. Introduction (Here) A. Doctrine of Preferred Freedoms While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights over property rights is recognized… In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political institutions; and such priority "gives these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not permitting dubious intrusions.” (A01) PBMEO v. PBM B. Right to Pursue Happiness Respondent is the one who has to live with his intersex anatomy. To him belongs the human right to the pursuit of happiness and of health. Thus, to him should belong the primordial choice of what courses of action to take along the path of his sexual development and maturation… In the absence of evidence to show that classifying the respondent as a male will harm other members of society who are equally entitled to protection under the law, the Court affirms as valid and justified the respondent’s position and his personal judgment of being a male. (A02) Republic v. Cagandahan C. Three Generations of Human Rights
1. Civil and Political Rights Fundamental rights which include: freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and the right to vote, among others, which are found in Arts. III, Bill of Rights; V, Suffrage; etc., of the 1987 Constitution. 2. Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights Economic, social, and cultural rights (ESCR) are human rights that relate to a person's standard of living, health, and participation in culture. They are protected by international and regional treaties, as well as the Constitution, as found in its Arts. XII, National Economy and Patrimony; XIII, Social Justice and Human Rights; XIV, Education, Science, Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports; and XV, The Family. 3. Emerging Rights Emerging rights are new or recently changed rights that are recognized by law or derived from existing laws. In the 1987 Constitution, examples of such rights can be found in Secs. 15, Right to Health; and 16, Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecology under Art. II, Declaration of Principles and State Policies. D. In relation to International Law (UDHR/ICCPR/ICESCR/etc.) (Here)
Fundamental Powers of the State
I. Police Power (Here)
A. Definition Police power is defined as "the inherent power of the State to regulate or to restrain the use of liberty and property for public welfare." Thus, "[u]nder the police power of the State, 'property rights of individuals may be subjected to restraints and burdens in order to fulfill the objectives of the government."' However, "police power does not involve the taking or confiscation of property, with the exception of a few cases where there is a necessity to confiscate private property in order to destroy it for the purpose of protecting peace and order and of promoting the general welfare; for instance, the confiscation of an illegally possessed article, such as opium and firearms. (B00) Equitable PCI Bank v. South Rich Acres B. Tests; Limitations Vast as the power is, however, it must be exercised within the limits set by the Constitution, which requires the concurrence of a lawful subject and a lawful [means]. Thus, our courts have laid down the test to determine the validity of a police measure as follows: (1) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, requires its exercise; and (2) the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. (B01) Planters Product Inc. v. Fertiphil Corp.
1. Exigent [Police power] is said to be the "inherent and plenary power of the State which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of the society." Thus, police power constitutes an implied limitation on the Bill of Rights. After all, "the Bill of Rights itself does not purport to be an absolute guaranty of individual rights and liberties. 'Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one's will.' It is subject to the far more overriding demands and requirements of the greater number.” (B02) Zabal v. Duterte C. Distinction (Here) 1. From Eminent Domain In the exercise of police power (as distinguished from eminent domain), although the regulation affects the right of ownership, none of the bundle of rights which constitute ownership is appropriated for use by or for the benefit of the public. On the other hand, in the exercise of the power of eminent domain, property interests are appropriated and applied to some public purpose which necessitates the payment of just compensation therefor. (B06) Manila Memorial Park v. Secretary of DSWD a) Police Power and Eminent Domain in Agrarian Reform The clear intent of the Constitutional guarantee of just compensation, whether understood within the terms of Article III, Section 9 or of Article XIII, Section 4, is to secure to any owner the "full and fair equivalent" of the property taken. Regardless of whether the taking was pursued in the "traditional" exercise of eminent domain or in its "revolutionary" exercise in the context of the State’s agrarian reform program, just compensation
residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants.” (1) Subject Matter Section 16 comprehends two branches of delegated powers, namely: the general legislative power and the police power proper. General legislative power refers to the power delegated by Congress to the local legislative body, or the Sangguniang Panlungsod in the case of Dayao City, to enable the local legislative body to enact ordinances and make regulations. This power is limited in that the enacted ordinances must not be repugnant to law, and the power must be exercised to effectuate and discharge the powers and duties legally conferred to the local legislative body. The police power proper, on the other hand, authorizes the local government unit to enact ordinances necessary and proper for the health and safety, prosperity, morals, peace, good order, comfort, and convenience of the local government unit and its constituents, and for the protection of their property… Section 458 of the Local Government Code explicitly vests the local government unit with the authority to enact legislation aimed at promoting the general welfare. (B0E) Mosqueda v. PBGEA (a) Preservation and enrichment of culture (Here) (b) Promotion of health and safety (Here) (c) Enhancement of the right of the people to a balanced ecology Following the provisions of the Local Government Code (Sec. 16) and the Constitution (Secs. 15 and 16, Art. II), the acts of the local government unit designed to ensure the health and lives of its constituents and to promote a balanced and healthful ecology are well within the corporate powers vested in the local government unit. (B0E) Mosqueda v. PBGEA (d) Encouragement and support of the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities (Here) (e) Improvement of public morals (Here) (f) Enhancement of economic prosperity and social justice (Here) (g) Promotion of full employment among their residents
(Here) (h) Maintenance of peace and order (Here) (i) Preservation of the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants (Here) (j) Others The power to issue licenses and permits necessarily includes the corollary power to revoke, withdraw or cancel the same. And the power to revoke or cancel, likewise includes the power to restrict through the imposition of certain conditions. In the case of Austin-Hardware, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, it was held that the power to license carries with it the authority to provide reasonable terms and conditions under which the licensed business shall be conducted. (B16) Acebedo Optical Company v. CA (2) Actions Incidental to Exercise of Power In the exercise of police power and the general welfare clause, property rights of individuals may be subjected to restraints and burdens in order to fulfil the objectives of the government. Otherwise stated, the government may enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty, property, lawful businesses and occupations to promote the general welfare… One such piece of legislation is the LGC, which authorizes city and municipal governments, acting through their local chief executives, to issue demolition orders. (B17) Aquino v. Municipality of Malay, Aklan b) Other agencies The DOH CDO letters implementing RA No. 10022 are consistent with the State's exercise of the police power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the people. Public interest justifies the State's interference in health matters, since the welfare of migrant workers is a legitimate public concern. The DOH thus merely performed its duty of upholding the migrant workers' freedom to consult their chosen clinics for the conduct of health examinations. B AMCOW v. GAMCA It bears stressing that under the provisions of E.O. No. 125, as amended, is the DOTC, and not the MMDA, which is authorized to establish and implement a project such as the one subject of the cases at bar. Thus, the President, although authorized to establish or cause the implementation of the Project, must exercise the authority through the instrumentality of the DOTC which, by law, is the primary implementing and administrative entity in the promotion, development and regulation
deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated: Provided, finally, That, the amount to be paid for the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court, based on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property.”
The Court declared that the following requisites for the valid exercise of the power of eminent domain by a local government unit must be complied with: ● 1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local chief executive, in behalf of the local government unit, to exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue expropriation proceedings over a particular private property. ● 2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the landless. ● 3. There is payment of just compensation, as required under Section 9, Article III of the Constitution, and other pertinent laws. ● 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. (C0F) Jesus is Lord Christian School Foundation Inc. v. City of Pasig (1) Municipal v. Provincial "The only ground upon which a provincial board may declare any municipal resolution, ordinance, or order invalid is when such resolution, ordinance, or order is 'beyond the powers conferred upon the council or president making the same.' Absolutely no other ground is recognized by the law…” Thus, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan was without the authority to disapprove Municipal Resolution No. 43-89 for the Municipality of Bunawan clearly has the power to exercise the right of eminent domain and its Sangguniang Bayan the capacity to promulgate said resolution, pursuant to Section 9 of B.P. Blg.
- (C00) Moday v. CA b) Public Utilities According to eminent constitutionalist and one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., "[t]he authority of the legislature to delegate the right of eminent domain to private entities operating public utilities has never been questioned." (C01) PNOC v. NGCP c) Others (Here)
C. Requisites The following are the requisites for the valid exercise of eminent domain: ● (1) the property taken must be private property; ● (2) there must be genuine necessity to take the private property; ● (3) the taking (3.1) must be for public use; ● (4) there must be payment of just compensation; and ● (5) the taking must comply with due process. Indubitably, for entities exercising a mere delegated power of expropriation, they must likewise demonstrate that they do have the authority to exercise such power of expropriation. (SUPRA) Iloilo Grain Complex Corp. v. Judge Enriquez-Gaspar
1. Private property (Here) a) Patrimonial property of government While the cases may differ as to the public or private character of waterworks, the weight of authority as far as the legislature is concerned classes them as private affairs. And in this jurisdiction, this Court has already expressed the view that a waterworks system is patrimonial property of the city that has established it. And being owned by a municipal corporation in a proprietary character, waterworks cannot be taken away without observing the safeguards set by our Constitution for the protection of private property… (C02) City of Baguio v. NAWASA The principle is this: If the property is owned by the municipal corporation or municipality in its public and governmental capacity, the property is public and Congress has absolute control over it; if the property is owned in its private or proprietary capacity, then it is patrimonial and Congress has no absolute control, in which case, the municipality cannot be deprived of it without due process and payment of just compensation. (C03) Province of Zamboanga del Norte v. City of Zamboanga b) Intangible properties Where the Republic may not compel the PLDT to celebrate a contract with it, the Republic may, in the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent domain, require the telephone company to permit interconnection of the government telephone system and that of the PLDT, as the needs of the government service may require, subject to the payment of just compensation to be determined by the court. Normally, of course, the power of eminent domain results in the taking or appropriation of title to, and possession of, the expropriated property; but no cogent reason appears why the said power may not be availed of to impose only a burden upon the owner of condemned property, without loss of title and possession. It is unquestionable that the real property may, through expropriation, be subjected to an easement of right of way. The use of the PLDT's lines and services to allow interservice connection between both telephone systems is not much
However, the concept of public use is not limited to traditional purposes. Here as elsewhere the idea that "public use" is strictly limited to clear cases of "use by the public" has been discarded… As long as the purpose of the taking is public, then the power of eminent domain comes into play. As just noted, the constitution in at least two cases, to remove any doubt, determines what is public use. One is the expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots for resale at cost to individuals. The other is in the transfer, through the exercise of this power, of utilities and other private enterprise to the government. It is accurate to state then that at present whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use. (C08) Heirs of Juancho Ardona v. Reyes
4. Genuine necessity The right to take private property for public purposes necessarily originates from "the necessity" and the taking must be limited to such necessity. In City of Manila v. Chinese Community of Manila, we held that the very foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is a genuine necessity and that necessity must be of a public character. Moreover, the ascertainment of the necessity must precede or accompany and not follow, the taking of the land. In City of Manila v. Arellano Law College, we ruled that "necessity within the rule that the particular property to be expropriated must be necessary, does not mean an absolute but only a reasonable or practical necessity, such as would combine the greatest benefit to the public with the least inconvenience and expense to the condemning party and the property owner consistent with such benefit.” (C0D) Masikip v. City of Pasig 5. Just compensation (1987 Constitution, Art. III) SECTION 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. D. Expropriation Proceedings (Here) 1. In general, Judicial proceedings (Here) a) First Stage The expropriation of property consists of two stages. The first stage is concerned with "the determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts involved in the suit." (C01) PNOC v. NGCP (1) Filing. Rule 67, Rules of Court Section 1. The complaint. – The right of eminent domain shall be exercised by the filing of a verified complaint which shall state with certainty the right and purpose of expropriation, describe the real or personal property sought to be expropriated, and join as defendants all persons owning or claiming to own, or occupying, any part thereof or interest therein, showing, so far
as practicable, the separate interest of each defendant. If the title to any property sought to be expropriated appears to be in the Republic of the Philippines, although occupied by private individuals, or if the title is otherwise obscure or doubtful so that the plaintiff cannot with accuracy or certainty specify who are the real owners, averment to that effect shall be made in the complaint. (1a) (a) Requirements prior to filing of expropriation cases (Here) (i) In relation to Local Governments. RA 7160, as amended. Article 35 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code provides: “Offer to Buy and Contract of Sale. — (a) The offer to buy private property for public use or purpose shall be in writing. It shall specify the property sought to be acquired, the reasons for its acquisition, and the price offered…” It is incumbent upon the condemnor to exhaust all reasonable efforts to obtain the land it desires by agreement. Failure to prove compliance with the mandatory requirement will result in the dismissal of the complaint… A reasonable offer in good faith, not merely perfunctory or pro forma offer, to acquire the property for a reasonable price must be made to the owner or his privy. A single bona fide offer that is rejected by the owner will suffice. (C0F) Jesus is Lord Christian School Foundation Inc. v. City of Pasig (ii) In relation to Housing Projects. RA 7279. The governing law that deals with the subject of expropriation for purposes of urban land reform and housing is Republic Act No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992) and, under its Sections 9 and 10, the limitations with respect to the order of priority in acquiring private lands and in resorting to expropriation proceedings as a means to acquire the same. Private lands rank last in the order of priority for purposes of socialized housing. In the same vein, expropriation proceedings are to be resorted to only when the other modes of acquisition have been exhausted. Compliance
indicates that it "shall take effect upon its publication in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation." (C14) Manapat v. CA (iii) In relation to National Infrastructure Projects. RA 10752. OCA Circular No. 113-2019, as reiterated by OCA Circular No. 68-2022 cites the case of Cordova 85 as basis for directing lower courts to immediately issue a writ of possession in expropriation cases once the following twin requisites are satisfied: (1) sufficiency of the complaint in form and substance; and (2) the required provisional deposit… The sufficiency in form and substance of the complaint for expropriation can be determined by the mere examination of the allegations in the complaint… In other words, the form is sufficient if it follows the required form by the Rules of Court; and the substance is sufficient if the complaint for expropriation under this specific statutory provision follows the requisites for the valid exercise of eminent domain (available above). (SUPRA) Iloilo Grain Complex Corp. v. Judge Enriquez-Gaspar (2) Deposit (a) In general. Rule 67, Rules of Court Section 2. Entry of plaintiff upon depositing value with authorized government depositary. – Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter and after due notice to the defendant, the plaintiff shall have the right to take or enter upon the possession of the real property involved if he deposits with the authorized government depositary an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation to be held by such bank subject to the orders of the court. Such deposit shall be in money, unless in lieu thereof the court authorizes the deposit of a certificate of deposit of a government bank of the Republic of the Philippines payable on demand to the authorized government depositary.
If personal property is involved, its value shall be provisionally ascertained and the amount to be deposited shall be promptly fixed by the court.
After such deposit is made the court shall order the sheriff or other proper officer to forthwith place the plaintiff in possession of the property involved and promptly submit a report thereof to the court with service of copies to the parties. (2a) (b) In relation to Local Governments. RA 7160, as amended. Provided, further, That the local government unit may immediately take possession of the property upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated… (c) In relation to National Infrastructure Projects. RA 10752. (a) Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter, and after due notice to the defendant, the implementing agency shall immediately deposit to the court in favor of the owner the amount equivalent to the sum of:
(1) One hundred percent (100%) of the value of the land based on the current relevant zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued not more than three (3) years prior to the filing of the expropriation complaint subject to subparagraph (c) of this section;
(2) The replacement cost at current market value of the improvements and structures as determined by:
(i) The implementing agency;
(ii) A government financial institution with adequate experience in property appraisal; and
(iii) An independent property appraiser accredited by the BSP.
(3) The current market value of crops and trees located within the property as determined by a government financial institution or an independent property appraiser to be selected as indicated in subparagraph (a) of Section 5 hereof. (i) NAIA 3 (Here)
to the court the just compensation for the property sought to be taken. The order of appointment shall designate the time and place of the first session of the hearing to be held by the commissioners and specify the time within which their report is to be filed with the court…”
"Section 8. Upon the expiration of the period of ten (10) days referred to in the preceding section, or even before the expiration of such period but after all the interested parties have filed their objections to the report or their statement of agreement therewith, the court may, after hearing, accept the report and render judgment in accordance therewith; or, for cause shown, it may recommit the same to the commissioners for further report of facts; or it may set aside the report and appoint new commissioners, or it may accept the report in part and reject it in part; and it may make such order or render such judgment as shall secure to the plaintiff the property essential to the exercise of his right of condemnation, and to the defendant just compensation for the property so taken…"
Contrary to the submission of private respondents, the appointment of at least three (3) competent persons as commissioners to ascertain just compensation for the property sought to be taken is a mandatory requirement in expropriation cases. While it is true that the findings of commissioners may be disregarded and the court may substitute its own estimate of the value, the latter may only do so for valid reasons, i.e., where the Commissioners have applied illegal principles to the evidence submitted to them or where they have disregarded a clear preponderance of evidence, or where the amount allowed is either grossly inadequate or excessive. (C18) Manila Electric Company v. Judge Pineda (a) Indivisible right to land This conclusion is drawn from Article 437 of the Civil Code which provides:
ART. 437. The owner of a parcel of land is the owner of its surface and of everything under it, and he can construct thereon any works or make any plantations and excavations which he may deem proper, without detriment to servitudes and subject to special laws and ordinances. He cannot complain of the reasonable requirements of aerial navigation.
Thus, the ownership of land extends to the surface as well as to the subsoil under it. In Republic of the
Philippines v. Court of Appeals , this principle was applied to show that rights over lands are indivisible and, consequently, require a definitive and categorical classification… Registered landowners may even be ousted of ownership and possession of their properties in the event the latter are reclassified as mineral lands because real properties are characteristically indivisible. For the loss sustained by such owners, they are entitled to just compensation under the Mining Laws or in appropriate expropriation proceedings. (C1A) NAPOCOR v. Ibrahim (2) Determination of Just Compensation SECTION 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. (a) Inclusions (i) Easements In the case at bar, the easement of right-of-way is definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain. Considering the nature and effect of the installation of the 230 KV Mexico-Limay transmission lines, the limitation imposed by NPC against the use of the land for an indefinite period deprives private respondents of its ordinary use… For these reasons, the owner of the property expropriated is entitled to a just compensation, which should be neither more nor less, whenever it is possible to make the assessment, than the money equivalent of said property. Just compensation has always been understood to be the just and complete equivalent of the loss which the owner of the thing expropriated has to suffer by reason of the expropriation. (C1B) NAPOCOR v. Spouses Gutierrez (a) Inherent easement requirements under land patents The seminal case of Andaya likewise involved property subject to the statutory lien under Sec. 112 of CA 141. As held in the case:
It is undisputed that there is a legal easement of right-of-way in favor of the Republic. Andaya's transfer certificates of title contained the reservation that
that the large transmission lines looming not far above their land and the huge tower in front of their lot will affect their safety and health; and the slim chance that no one would be interested to buy the remaining portions on each side of the residential lot affected by the project, to the damage of the landowners, both as to future actual use of the land and financial gains to be derived therefrom, makes the instant case fall within the ambit of expropriation. Also read this. (C1D) NAPOCOR v. San Pedro (b) Reckoning period (Here) (i) Taking or filing of the case whichever is earlier (Rules of Court, Rule 67) SEC. 4. Order of expropriation. — If the objections to and the defense against the right of the plaintiff to expropriate the property are overruled, or when no party appears to defend as required by this Rule, the court may issue an order of expropriation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be expropriated, for the public use or purpose described in the complaint, upon the payment of just compensation to be determined as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first.
Thus, 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." (C1E) Eslaban v. De Onorio (ii) Exceptions In National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals, a case that involved the similar construction of an underground tunnel by NPC without the prior consent and knowledge of the owners, and in which we held that the basis in fixing just compensation when the initiation of the action preceded the entry into the property was the time of the filing of the complaint, not the time of taking, we pointed out that there was no taking when the entry by NPC was made
"without intent to expropriate or was not made under warrant or color of legal authority." C NAPOCOR v. Heirs of Sangkay In determining just compensation, the price or value of the property at the time it was taken from the owner and appropriated by the government shall be the basis. If the government takes possession of the land before the institution of expropriation proceedings, the value should be fixed as of the time of the taking of said possession, not of the filing of the complaint. The 'time of taking' is the time when the landowner was deprived of the use and benefit of his property, such as when title is transferred to the Republic. It should be noted, however, that "taking" does not only take place upon the issuance of title either in the name of the Republic or the beneficiaries of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). "Taking" also occurs when agricultural lands are voluntarily offered by a landowner and approved by PARC for CARP coverage through the stock distribution scheme. (C21) Hacienda Luisita Inc. v. Presidential Agricultural Reform Council (c) Valuation (Here) (i) Fair market value In expropriation proceedings in general, the market value is the just compensation to which the owner of a condemned property is entitled. More precisely, market value is "that sum of money which a person desirous but not compelled to buy, and an owner willing but not compelled to sell, would agree on as a price to be given and received therefor…" Just compensation, then, is the full and fair equivalent of a property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The measure is not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss…
Necessarily, just compensation must not be arrived at arbitrarily, but determined after an evaluation of different factors. In the present
