Pre.mid Discussion Notes

8/3/2019 Pre.mid Discussion Notes

1/23

Constitutional Law II Discussion Notes

1 | P a g e

11-8-11

Political law is that branch of public law which deals with the operation and organization of the

governmental organs of the State and defines the relationship between the State and the inhabitants of

its territory.

Relationship:

- Authority or power......rights (limitation to one another)

- Obligation

- Rights

Branches of Political Law:

1. Constitutional law2. Election law

3. Law on Public Officers

4. Administrative law

5. Law on Public Corporations

Public law is that branch of law which deals with the State, state agencies, and the protection of State

interests.

Branches:

1. Political law

2. Criminal law

3. International law

Private law is that branch of law which deals with the relationship between and among individuals.

Branches:

1. Civil law

2. Commercial law

Constitutional law is the study of the Constitution and the principles growing out of the interpretations

of the provisions of the Constitution. (General definition)

Constitution + Jurisprudence


2/23


2 | P a g e

Constitution is the body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the powers of sovereignty are

habitually exercised.

Is the Constitution the source of the states power? NO

Constitutional law study of the balance between powers of the state and the rights of the individuals.

(Specific definition)

3 Types of Constitutionalism:

1. British

2. Continental

3. American

Judicial review is the power of courts to declare that a law or executive act is not in accord with the

Constitution.

Requisites of Judicial review:

1. Actual case

2. Legal standing (direct injury test) or Locus standi

3. Filed at the earliest opportunity

4. Very lis mota

Transcendental importance lack of legal standing is ignored

Moot and academic cases will be decided if it is capable of repetition and evading review.

Effect of declaration of Constitutionality:

- Doctrine ofOperative Fact


3/23


3 | P a g e

11-14-11

[Agustin vs. Edu, 88 SCRA 195]

Letter of instruction 229 for an early warning device for motor vehicles. The EWDs are required tobe triangular because the Philippines are a signatory of the 1968 Vienna Convention. EWDs should

be installed when the cars are stalled or disabled for 30 minutes at the rear and at the front of the

motor vehicle to signal approaching motorists of their presence.

Police power is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education,

good order or safety, and general welfare of the people. It is that inherent and plenary power in the

State which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society.

(description)

[Churchill vs. Rafferty, 32 Phil 580]

The police power of the State, so far, has not received a full and complete definition.

Police power should not be defined because then it will be limited and can no longer respond to

changing ways of the time.

[Ichiong vs. Hernandez, 101 Phil 1155]

It has been said the police power is so far - reaching in scope, that it has become almost impossible

to limit its sweep. As it derives its existence from the very existence of the State itself, it does not

need to be expressed or defined in its scope; it is said to be co-extensive with self-protection and

survival, and as such it is the most positive and active of all governmental processes, the most

essential, insistent and illimitable. Especially is it so under a modern democratic framework where

the demands of society and of nations have multiplied to almost unimaginable proportions; the field

and scope of police power has become almost boundless, just as the fields of public interest and

public welfare have become almost all-embracing and have transcended human foresight.

Otherwise stated, as we cannot foresee the needs and demands of public interest and welfare in this

constantly changing and progressive world, so we cannot delimit beforehand the extent or scope of


4/23


4 | P a g e

police power by which and through which the State seeks to attain or achieve interest or welfare. So

it is that Constitutions do not define the scope or extent of the police power of the State.

[Lawrence vs. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)]

Police power can only regulate those that concern public welfare. The moment it touches matters of

private concern, it is already the outside the domain of police power.

[MMDA vs. Bel-Air, 328 SCRA 836]


5/23


5 | P a g e

11-15-11

Police power can only be exercised by Congress because they know the conditions of their

respective lands and are the representatives of the will of the people who will then be able to create

and promulgate rules that will cure certain situations.

[Binay vs. Domingo, 201 SCRA 508]

The police power is a governmental function, an inherent attribute of sovereignty, which

was born with civilized government. It is founded largely on the maxims, "Sic utere tuo et

ahenum non laedas and "Salus populi est suprema lex. Its fundamental purpose is securing

the general welfare, comfort and convenience of the people.

Police power is inherent in the state but not in municipal corporations (Balacuit v. CFI of

Agusan del Norte, 163 SCRA 182). Before a municipal corporation may exercise such power,

there must be a valid delegation of such power by the legislature which is the repository of

the inherent powers of the State. A valid delegation of police power may arise from express

delegation, or be inferred from the mere fact of the creation of the municipal corporation;

and as a general rule, municipal corporations may exercise police powers within the fair

intent and purpose of their creation which are reasonably proper to give effect to the

powers expressly granted, and statutes conferring powers on public corporations have been

construed as empowering them to do the things essential to the enjoyment of life and

desirable for the safety of the people. (62 C.J.S., p. 277). The so-called inferred police powers

of such corporations are as much delegated powers as are those conferred in express terms,

the inference of their delegation growing out of the fact of the creation of the municipal

corporation and the additional fact that the corporation can only fully accomplish the

objects of its creation by exercising such powers. (Crawfordsville vs. Braden, 28 N.E. 849).Furthermore, municipal corporations, as governmental agencies, must have such measures

of the power as are necessary to enable them to perform their governmental functions. The

power is a continuing one, founded on public necessity. (62 C.J.S. p. 273) Thus, not only does

the State effectuate its purposes through the exercise of the police power but the

municipality does also. (U.S. v. Salaveria, 39 Phil. 102).

Municipal governments exercise this power under the general welfare clause: pursuant

thereto they are clothed with authority to "enact such ordinances and issue such

regulations as may be necessary to carry out and discharge the responsibilities conferred

upon it by law, and such as shall be necessary and proper to provide for the health, safety,comfort and convenience, maintain peace and order, improve public morals, promote the

prosperity and general welfare of the municipality and the inhabitants thereof, and insure

the protection of property therein." (Sections 91, 149, 177 and 208, BP 337). And under

Section 7 of BP 337, "every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly

granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary and proper for

governance such as to promote health and safety, enhance prosperity, improve morals, and

maintain peace and order in the local government unit, and preserve the comfort and


6/23


6 | P a g e

convenience of the inhabitants therein."

Police power is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace,

education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people. It is the most essential,

insistent, and illimitable of powers. In a sense it is the greatest and most powerful attribute

of the government. It is elastic and must be responsive to various social conditions.(Sangalang, et al. vs. IAC, 176 SCRA 719). On it depends the security of social order, the life

and health of the citizen, the comfort of an existence in a thickly populated community, the

enjoyment of private and social life, and the beneficial use of property, and it has been said

to be the very foundation on which our social system rests. (16 C.J.S., P. 896) However, it is

not confined within narrow circumstances of precedents resting on past conditions; it must

follow the legal progress of a democratic way of life. (Sangalang, et al. vs. IAC, supra).

Why would do the courts be hesitant in scrutinizing the local government units exercising police

power compared to when the Congress is exercising police power?

Courts have wider degree of judicial review when police power is exercised by a delegated

authority as when it is exercised by Congress. If police power is exercised by a delegated authority,

it is a legal question because you are questioning whether the delegated authority have complied

with the conditions given, compared to when it is exercised by Congress within which it is a

political question.

Private corporations cannot exercise police power, only municipal corporations.

[DECS vs. San Diego, 180 SCRA 525]

There is no need to redefine here the police power of the State. Suffice it to repeat that the

power is validly exercised if (a) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from

those of a particular class, require the interference of the State, and (b) the means employed

are reasonably necessary to the attainment of the object sought to be accomplished and not

unduly oppressive upon individuals.

In other words, the proper exercise of the police power requires the concurrence of a lawful

subject and a lawful method.

[Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association vs. City Mayor, L-24693, July 31, 1967]

There is no need to redefine here the police power of the State. Suffice it to repeat that the

power is validly exercised if (a) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from

those of a particular class, require the interference of the State, and (b) the means employed

are reasonably necessary to the attainment of the object sought to be accomplished and not

unduly oppressive upon individuals.


7/23


7 | P a g e

In other words, the proper exercise of the police power requires the concurrence of a lawful

subject and a lawful method.

[White Light Corp. vs. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009]

That the Ordinance prevents the lawful uses of a wash rate depriving patrons of a productand the petitioners of lucrative business ties in with another constitutional requisite for the

legitimacy of the Ordinance as a police power measure. It must appear that the interests of

the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require an

interference with private rights and the means must be reasonably necessary for the

accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive of private rights. It must also be

evident that no other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of

private rights can work. More importantly, a reasonable relation must exist between the

purposes of the measure and the means employed for its accomplishment, for even under

the guise of protecting the public interest, personal rights and those pertaining to private

property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded.

Lawful Subject + Lawful Means

- Public morals - no arbitrariness

- reasonable connection

- least intrusive into private

rights

- Public safety

- Public health

[Del Rosario vs. Bengzon, 180 SCRA 525]

The prohibition against the use by doctors of "no substitution" and/or words of similar

import in their prescription, is a valid regulation to prevent the circumvention of the law. It

secures to the patient the right to choose between the brand name and its generic

equivalent since his doctor is allowed to write both the generic and the brand name in his

prescription form. If a doctor is allowed to prescribe a brand-name drug with "no

substitution," the patient's option to buy a lower-priced, but equally effective, generic

equivalent would thereby be curtailed. The law aims to benefit the impoverished (and often

sickly) majority of the population in a still developing country like ours, not the affluent and

generally healthy minority.

[Javier vs. Earnshaw, 64 Phil 626]

The storing, handling, and use of inflammable and explosive substances, being attended

with danger, may be regulated under the police power.

What do you do if you want to invalidate a regulation?


8/23


8 | P a g e

1. Check if the branch or agency has a properly delegated power to exercise police

power2. Lawful subject or purpose3. Lawful means or method

What makes a purpose lawful is when it touches public concern.

You must distinguish whether the police power is exercised by a delegate authority or an inherent

prerogative.

Eminent domain will be exercised if the private owner refuses to give his private property.

Regalian Doctrine everything is owned by the State. The State simply allowed us to own lands.


9/23


9 | P a g e

11-18-11

[Moday vs. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 586]

Eminent domain, the power which the Municipality of Bunawan exercised in the instant case, is a

fundamental State power that is inseparable from sovereignty.14 It is government's right to appropriate, in

the nature of a compulsory sale to the State, private property for public use or purpose. 15 Inherently

possessed by the national legislature, the power of eminent domain may be validly delegated to local

governments, other public entities and public utilities.16 For the taking of private property by the government

to be valid, the taking must be for public use and there must be just compensation.17

Is eminent domain constitutionally granted?

Section 9, Article 3 is not a confirmation but a limitation of Eminent Domain.

[Visayan Refining Co. vs. Camus and Paredes, 40 Phil 550]

The power of eminent domain does not depend for its existence on a specific grant in the constitution. It

is inherent in sovereignty and exists in a sovereign state without any recognition of it in the constitution.

The provisions found in most of the state constitutions relating to the taking of property for the public use

do not by implication grant the power to the government of the state, but limit a power which would

otherwise be without limit." (10, R. C. L., pp. 11, 12.)

Who may exercise it?

[City of Manila vs. Chinese Community of Manila, 40 Phil 349]

U

pon the question whether expropriation is a legislative function exclusively, and that the courts cannotintervene except for the purpose of determining the value of the land in question, there is much legal literature.

Much has been written upon both sides of that question. A careful examination of the

discussionspro and con will disclose the fact that the decisions depend largely upon particular constitutional or

statutory provisions. It cannot be denied, if the legislature under proper authority should grant the expropriation

of a certain orparticularparcelof land forsome specifiedpublicpurpose, that the courts would be without

jurisdiction to inquire into the purpose of that legislation.

If, upon the other hand, however, the Legislature should grant generalauthorityto a municipal corporation to

expropriateprivate landforpublic purposes, we think the courts have ample authority in this jurisdiction, under

the provisions above quoted, to make inquiry and to hear proof, upon an issue properly presented, concerning

whether or not the lands were private and whether the purpose was, in fact, public. . In other words, have not the

courts in this jurisdiction the right, inasmuch as the questions relating to expropriation mustbe referred to them

(sec. 241, Act No. 190) for final decision, to ask whether or not the law has been complied with? Suppose, in a

particular case, it should be denied that the property is not private property butpublic, may not the courts hear

proof upon that question? Or, suppose the defense is, that the purpose of the expropriation is

not public butprivate, or that there exists no public purpose at all, may not the courts make inquiry and hear proof

upon that question?


10/23


10 | P a g e

When the courts come to determine the question, they must not only find (a) that a law or authority exists for the

exercise of the right of eminent domain, but (b) also that the right or authority is being exercised in accordance

with the law.

The veryfoundation ofthe right to exercise eminent domain is a genuine necessity, and that necessity must be ofa

public character. The ascertainment ofthe necessity mustprecede oraccompany, and notfollow, the taking oftheland.

Courts can come in upon the showing only of grave abuse of discretion.

If it is exercised by delegate, look at its power whether it is general or specific.

Genuine necessity is a political question if exercised by Congress but a legal question if exercised by a

delegate authority with general power.

Delegated authority:

A. AuthorityB. Requirements/Limitations

[Heirs of Alberto Suguitan vs. City of Mandaluyong, 328 SCRA 137]

The power of eminent domain is essentially legislative in nature. It is firmly settled, however, that such power may

be validly delegated to local government units, other public entities and public utilities, although the scope of this

delegated legislative power is necessarily narrower than that of the delegating authority and may only be

exercised in strict compliance with the terms of the delegating law. 22

The basis for the exercise of the power of eminent domain by local government units is Section 19 of RA 7160

(Local Government Code) which provides that:

A local government unit may, through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance,

exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, purpose, or welfare for the benefits of

the poor and the landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of

the Constitution and pertinent laws; Provided, however, That the power of eminent domain

may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner,

and such offer was not accepted; 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; 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.

Despite the existence of this legislative grant in favor of local governments, it is still the duty of the courts to

determine whether the power of eminent domain is being exercised in accordance with the delegating law. 23 In

fact, the courts have adopted a more censorious attitude in resolving questions involving the proper exercise of


11/23


11 | P a g e

this delegated power by local bodies, as compared to instances when it is directly exercised by the national

legislature. 24

The courts have the obligation to determine whether the following requisites have been complied with by the local

government unit concerned:

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 tobe expropriated, but said offer was not accepted. 25

We are not convinced by petitioner's insistence that the terms "resolution" and "ordinance" are

synonymous. Amunicipal ordinance is different from a resolution. An ordinance is a law, but a resolution

is merely a declaration of the sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific matter. An

ordinance possesses a general and permanent character, but a resolution is temporary in nature.

Additionally, the two are enacted differently a third reading is necessary for an ordinance, but not for a

resolution, unless decided otherwise by a majority of all the Sanggunian members.


12/23


12 | P a g e

11-22-11

EMINENT DOMAIN can be exercised by Congress by inherent power and by delegates.

If delegates, it is not inherent authority. (inferior domain, not eminent; limited in nature and express

limitation in law)

Art. 7279

Requirement for LGU to expropriate:

The governing law that deals with the subject of expropriation for purposed of urban land reform and

housing in Republic Act No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992) and Sections 9 and 10

of which specifically provide as follows:

Sec. 9. Priorities in the acquisition of Land Lands for socialized housing shall be acquired in the

following order:

(a) Those owned by the Government or any of its sub-divisions, instrumentalities, or agencies, including

government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;

(b) Alienable lands of the public domain;

(c) Unregistered or abandoned and idle lands;

(d) Those within the declared Areas of Priority Development, Zonal Improvement sites, and SlumImprovement and Resettlement Program sites which have not yet been acquired;

(e) Bagong Lipunan Improvement sites and Services or BLISS sites which have not yet been acquired;

and

(f) Privately-owned lands.

Where on-site development is found more practicable and advantageous to the beneficiaries, the

priorities mentioned in this section shall not apply. The local government units shall give budgetary

priority to on-site development of government lands.

(REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS VS VDA DE CASTELLVI)

TAKING:


13/23


13 | P a g e

1. entry2. permanent3. color of authority full intention to exercise power of ED4. deprivation

- deprived of total ownership of property- deprived of some beneficial use

The utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him

of all beneficial enjoyment of the property. In the instant case, the entry of the Republic into the property

and its utilization of the same for public use did not oust Castellvi and deprive her of all beneficial

enjoyment of the property.

(NAPOCOR VS CA)

Warrant or color of authority intent to expropriate or exercise full power of eminent domain

In this case, the petitioners entrance in 1978 was without intent to expropriate or was not made under

warrant or color of legal authority, for it believed the property was public land covered by Proclamation

No. 1354.

Only in 1992, after the private respondent sued to recover possession and petitioner filed its Complaint to

expropriate, did petitioner manifest its intention to exercise the power of eminent domain.

** Upon taking, it must be for public purpose which means:

- used by public?- It is for public benefit: property if you are able to show that there is public benefit that it

can be of public use.

(Sumulong vs Guerrero)

Even if not directly, you can derive indirect public benefit.

Even if it doesnt benefit a lot, it is for culture, history.

Expropriation must be for specific purpose.

(MCIAA VS LOZADA)


14/23


14 | P a g e

More particularly, with respect to the element of public use, the expropriator should commit to use the

property pursuant to the purpose stated in the petition for expropriation filed, failing which, it should file

another petition for the new purpose. If not, it is then incumbent upon the expropriator to return the said

property to its private owner, if the latter desires to reacquire the same. Otherwise, the judgment of

expropriation suffers an intrinsic flaw, as it would lack one indispensable element for the proper exercise

of the power of eminent domain, namely, the particular public purpose for which the property will be

devoted. Accordingly, the private property owner would be denied due process of law, and the judgment

would violate the property owners right to justice, fairness, and equity.

Government can change purpose as long as it goes to court for the change or else property will be

returned.

If government gets property through eminent domain you have no choice but to give it up in return for

just compensation.

JUST COMPENSATION a judicial function

- Court sees what is full and fair compensation- Determined by the court- Is the fair market value of the property - Jc = fmv + (consequential damage consequential benefit)-

price that you will pay from the seller not compelled to sell and from a buyer who is notkeen in buying

RECKONING OF FAIR MARKET VALUE:

1. taking -2. filing of complaint

(EPZA VS DULAY)

P.D. No. 76:

xxx xxx xxx


15/23


15 | P a g e

For purposes of just compensation in cases of private property acquired by the government for public

use, the basis shall be the current and fair market value declared by the owner or adminiqtrator, or such

market value as determined by the Assessor, whichever is lower.

(MUN. OF BINAN VS GARCIA)

There are two (2) stages in every action of expropriation.

1. The first is concerned with the determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise thepower of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts involved inthe suit. 19 It ends with an order, if not of dismissal of the action, "of condemnation declaringthat the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be condemned, for the publicuse or purpose described in the complaint, upon the payment of just compensation to bedetermined as of the date of the filing of the complaint." 20 An order of dismissal, if this beordained, would be a final one, of course, since it finally disposes of the action and leavesnothing more to be done by the Court on the Merits. 21 So, too, would an order of condemnationbe a final one, for thereafter, as the Rules expressly state, in the proceedings before the TrialCourt, "no objection to the exercise of the right of condemnation (or the propriety thereof) shallbe flied or heard. 22

The second phase of the eminent domain action is concerned with the determination by the Court of "the

just compensation for the property sought to be taken." This is done by the Court with the assistance of

not more than three (3) commissioners. 23 The order fixing the just compensation on the basis of the

evidence before, and findings of, the commissioners would be final, too. It would finally dispose of the

second stage of the suit, and leave nothing more to be done by the Court regarding the issue. Obviously,

one or another of the parties may believe the order to be erroneous in its appreciation of the evidence or

findings of fact or otherwise. Obviously, too, such a dissatisfied party may seek reversal of the order by

taking an appeal therefrom.

(MCIAA VS RODRIGUEZ)

It is as of the time of such a taking, to repeat, that the just compensation for the property is to be

established. As stated in Republic v. Philippine National Bank,

". . . (W)hen plaintiff takes possession before the institution of the condemnation proceedings, the value

should be fixed as of the time of the taking of said possession, not of filing of the complaint and the latter

should be the basis for the determination of the value, when the taking of the property involved coincides

with or is subsequent to, the commencement of the proceedings. Indeed, otherwise, the provision of


16/23


16 | P a g e

Rule 69, Section 3, directing that compensation 'be determined as of the date of the filing of the

complaint' would never be operative. As intimated in Republic v. Lara (supra), said provision

contemplates 'normal circumstances,' under which 'the complaint coincides or even precedes the taking

of the property by the plaintiff.'"

Just compensation compensates owner for what HE LOST.

RULE 67: Procedure for just compensation

WHEN CAN EXPROPRIATOR ENTER THE PROPERTY?

RULE 67 SEC. 2 Upon filing of complaint of expropriation, plaintiff shall have the right to take or enter

upon the possession of the real property involved if the deposits with the authorized governmentdepositary an amount equivalent to

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE

IF LGU = makes a deposit with the proper court of at least 15 percent of FMV of the property based on

the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated.

For other expropriators:

When do you get just compensation?


17/23


17 | P a g e

11-25-11

Difference between Police Power and Eminent Domain

[Office of the Solicitor General vs. Ayala Land, GR No 177056]

When there is a taking or confiscation of private property for public use, the State is no longer exercising

police power, but another of its inherent powers, namely, eminent domain. Eminent domain enables

the State to forcibly acquire private lands intended for public use upon payment of just compensation to

owner.

It is only police power if you take a property for the purpose of destroying it.

Taxation power by which the Sovereign raises revenue to pay necessary expenses of the government.

How is it exercised? When exercised what are the limitations and the exceptions?

Nature of the power.


18/23


19/23


19 | P a g e

11-29-11

Article III. Bill of Rights

y Rights

- There are some rights that are inherent and some are not inherent but stated inconstitution

- Universal declaration of human rights: Civil rights, political rights, economic

rights.

- Some rights are not inherent like the right to appeal.

[People vs. Domasian]

- Bill of Rights can only be invoked against the state but not against the individual.

Only to the state because it has an awesome power against the people, thus,

BO

R gives limitations.- Note for ransom was taken by Agra himself and not by the NBI. Thus, Bill of

Rights cannot be invoked.

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall

any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

y Deprived of life you are alive but not living a quality life (philosophical point of view)

y Deprived of liberty incarceration

y Deprived of property

y Person stated here covers national and juridical (have artificial life; law gave life to it,

e.g. corporations, partnership, etc.); application of due process in juridical is not the

same with natural persons as its existence is limited to the law.

[Sec. of National defense vs. Manalo]

- When there is deprivation of life, liberty and property

[U.S. vs. Ling Su Fan]

Due Process: (Before you are deprived, ff. procedures are followed)

1. Authority to pass law If there is authority to pass legislation Substantive

2. Reasonable 1) Substance/purpose; 2) Lawful means

3. Procedure


20/23


20 | P a g e

Due process of Law: In general

y Two aspects:

1. Substantive

a. Includes notice

b. Void for vagueness test to men of common intelligence;applies to freedom of speech case.

2. Procedural

a. In court proceedings

I. Jurisdiction (fixed by congress)

- Subject matter fixed by law, check the law

and check what jurisdiction to know where is

the proper court to file.

-Person

II. Notice and Hearing

- You must be given opportunity to be heard. It

is a requirement for due process.

1. Proof beyond reasonable doubt

2. Preponderance of evidence

III. Cold Neutrality of an Impartial Judge

- Court has repeatedly and consistently

demanded the cold neutrality of an impartial judge as

the indespensible imperative of due process.- Must appear neutral in truth and in

appearance. [GR 118882]

b. In administrative case

c. In student discipline

- It is recognized by the constitution that school must have a disciplinary action

- SC states a school without discipline is like a mill without a water

- Requirements:

1. Publication

2. Reasonableness of the rules

3. Just, authorized and recognized causes

4. Appropriate Procedure

5. Appropriate penalty

- Sec.78 Authority to promulgate disciplinary rules.

- Preventive Suspension doesnt require prior notice and hearing as it is not a

penalty. No need to hear your side, can be immediately impose.


21/23


21 | P a g e

- 1) suspension, 2) exclusion (remove/dropped in school), 3)expulsion (cannot beenrolled school within Philippines)

- Penalty should be congruent with the committed act

12-06-11

Coverage for Pre-mid: Start to Equal Protection of Laws

Due Process of Law: In General (2 Aspects) Both must be complied

1) Substantive (If asked about the Substantive Due Process)

- Check the authority to pass the law

- Reasonableness

- Procedure

Requirements: to be notified and must not be vague

2) Procedural

- In Court Proceedings

- In Administrative Case

- In Student Discipline

[Serrano vs. NLRC]

Due process does not apply on private parties. Not all requirement and hearing are not from

constitutions but rather on fair play, justice. (Art.III, Sec1-Against Govt)

Equal Protection of Laws all persons or things similarly treated both as to rights conferred and

responsibilities imposed.

[Philippine Judges Assoc vs. Prado]

The equal protection of the laws is embraced in the concept of due process, as every unfair discrimination offends therequirements of justice and fair play. It has nonetheless been embodied in a separate clause in Article III Sec. 1.,of the Constitution to provide for a more,specific guaranty against any form of undue favoritism or hostilityfrom the government. Arbitrariness in general may be challenged on the basis of the due process clause. But if theparticular act assailed partakes of an unwarranted partiality or prejudice, the sharper weapon to cut it down is theequal protection clause.

According to a long line of decisions, equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situatedshould be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed,

12Similar subjects, in other words,

should not be treated differently, so as to give undue favor to some and unjustly discriminate against others.

The equal protection clause does not require the universal application of the laws on all persons or things withoutdistinction. This might in fact sometimes result in unequal protection, as where, for example, a law prohibiting maturebooks to all persons, regardless of age, would benefit the morals of the youth but violate the liberty of adults. Whatthe clause requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification. By classification ismeant the grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain particulars and different from all others inthese same particulars.

13

Right to be noticed

and to be heard


22/23


22 | P a g e

[Villegas vs. Ho]

Unequal protection of laws as Mayor in this case requires to all alien to pay 50 pesos for permit

regardless of the kind of job an alien is employed.

[People v. Cayat]

It is an established principle of constitutional law that the guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is

not equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable classification.And

the classification, to be reasonable, (1) must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) must be germane to

the purposes of the law; (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) must apply equally to

all members of the same class.

Example is woman have special clause of to put a chair during work but does it also mean to

decrease the passing average of women in the bar exam? (Germane to the purpose of the law)

Physical attribute should not be allowed to interfere with her capability to practice law.

[Quinto vs. Comelec]

Sad to state, this conclusion conveniently ignores the long-standing rule that to remedy an injustice, the

Legislature need not address every manifestation of the evil at once; it may proceed "one step at a

time."39 In addressing a societal concern, it must invariably draw lines and make choices, thereby

creating some inequity as to those included or excluded.40

Nevertheless, as long as "the bounds of

reasonable choice" are not exceeded, the courts must defer to the legislative judgment.41

We may not

strike down a law merely because the legislative aim would have been more fully achieved by expanding

the class.42

Stated differently, the fact that a legislative classification, by itself, is underinclusive will notrender it unconstitutionally arbitrary or invidious.

43There is no constitutional requirement that

regulation must reach each and every class to which it might be applied;44 that the Legislature must be

held rigidly to the choice of regulating all or none.


23/23


23 | P a g e

12-12-11

Umbrella Right: RIGHT TO PRIVACY Is not expressly stated, penumbral right, comes in the shades of

the constitution

Right against unreasonable searches and seizures. (Art III Bill of Rights, Section 2)

Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against

unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no

search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally

by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may

produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

y Exceptions:

1) Reasonable Searches

2) Legal Warrantless Arrest

Search to look forth Arrest take you in a legal custody

General Rule:

Whats Reasonable: Valid Warrant (Search or Arrest)

Valid Warrant Search or Arrest:

1) Probable Cause

2) Determined by Judge

3) After examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses4) particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized

Exceptions: Valid Warrantless search or arrest.

Probable Cause

- Facts and circumstances that establish an offense has been committed.

-Facts that reasonable persons accept it that offense has been committed.

Gather Evidences then bring it to prosecutor or judge (finding probable cause / dismiss), then makes

resolution filing information or charge. Bring it to the judge, and he will read the files then if he agrees,

thus, issuance of search warrant / warrant of arrest.

During trial, facts and circumstances court is looking for a proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jason-go
View:	223 times
Download:	0 times

Pre.mid Discussion Notes

Documents