Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
90Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1

Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1

Ratings:

5.0

(1)
|Views: 4,664|Likes:
Published by Stef Macapagal
digests for constitutional law 2: fundamental powers of the state
digests for constitutional law 2: fundamental powers of the state

More info:

Published by: Stef Macapagal on Jul 21, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/27/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATETitleFactsIssue/sRulingDoctrine
Gerochi v. DOEGR No. 15979617 July 2007
 Nachura, J.
RA 9136, otherwise known asthe Electric Power IndustryReform Act of 2001 (EPIRA),which sought to impose auniversal charge on all end-usersof electricity for the purpose of funding NAPOCOR’s projects,was enacted and took effect in2001.Petitioners contest theconstitutionality of the EPIRA,stating that the imposition of theuniversal charge on all end-usersis oppressive and confiscatoryand amounts to taxation withoutrepresentation for not giving theconsumers a chance to be heardand be represented.W/N the universal charge is atax. NO. The assailed universalcharge is not a tax, but anexaction in the exercise of theState’s police power. That publicwelfare is promoted may begleaned from Sec. 2 of theEPIRA, which enumerates the policies of the State regardingelectrification. Moreover, theSpecial Trust Fund feature of theuniversal charge reasonablyserves and assures the attainmentand perpetuity of the purposesfor which the universal charge isimposed (e.g. to ensure theviability of the country’s electric power industry), further boostingthe position that the same is anexaction primarily in pursuit of the State’s police objectives.If generation of revenue is the primary purpose and regulation ismerely incidental, the impositionis a tax; but if regulation is the primary purpose, the fact thatrevenue is incidentally raiseddoes not make the imposition atax.The taxing power may be used asan implement of police power.The theory behind the exercise of the power to tax emanates fromnecessity; without taxes,government cannot fulfill itsmandate of promoting thegeneral welfare and well-being of the people.Chavez v. RomuloGR No. 1570369 June 2004
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.
Pursuant to PGMA’s speechstressing the need for anationwide gun ban in all public places, PNP Chief Ebdane issuedthe Guidelines in theImplementation of the Ban onthe Carrying of Firearms Outsideof Residence.” It revoked allexisting Permits to CarryFirearms Outside of Residence(PTCFOR), subject to renewal.Francisco Chavez, a licensed gunowner to whom a PTCFOR has been issued, requested the DILGto reconsider the implementationof the assailed Guidelines. Hisrequest was denied. Thus, hewent to court to challenge theconstitutionality of theW/N the revocation of thePTCFORs pursuant to theGuidelines is a violation of the people’s right to property.W/N the issuance of the assailedGuidelines is a valid exercise of  police power. NO. The right to bear arms is amere statutory privilege, not aconstitutional right. Being a merestatutory creation, the right to bear arms cannot be consideredan inalienable or absolute right.A license authorizing a person toenjoy a certain privilege isneither a property nor propertyright.YES. It is apparent from theassailed Guidelines that the basisfor its issuance was the need for  peace and order in the society.Undeniably, the motivatingfactor in the issuance of theGuidelines is the interest of the public in general.A license authorizing a person toenjoy a certain privilege isneither a property nor propertyright.
1
 
Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
Guidelines.PRC v. de GuzmanGR No. 14468121 June 2004
Tinga, J.
79 successful examinees of thePhysician LicensureExamination from FatimaCollege obtained unusual andexceptionally high scores in thetwo most difficult subjects of theexam, which aroused thesuspicion of the Board of Medicine. They had the resultssurveyed by a statistician andinvestigated by the NBI.Subsequently, they adopted aResolution which withheld theregistration as physicians of theFatima examinees. After theresults of the investigation of the NBI and the survey of Fr. Nebres, the Board issued another Resolution charging the saidexaminees with immorality,dishonest conduct, fraud, anddeceit.The Fatima examinees, on theother hand, filed the special civilaction of mandamus against thePRC so that they would beallowed to take their physician’soath.W/N the Board has discretion tohold in abeyance theadministration of the Hippocraticoath and the issuance of thecertificates to successful boardexaminees.YES. The practice of medicine isa privilege, subject toqualifications anddisqualifications. It must appear that the applicant has fullycomplied with all the conditionsand requirements imposed by thelaw and the licensing authority.Should doubt taint or mar thecompliance as being less thansatisfactory, then the privilegewill not issue. Until the moraland mental fitness of de Guzman,et al. could be ascertained, theBoard has discretion to hold inabeyance the administration of the Hippocratic oath and theissuance of the certificates tothem. The writ of mandamusdoes not lie to compel performance of an act which isnot duly authorized.The power to regulate theexercise of a profession or  pursuit of an occupation cannot be exercised by the State or itsagents in an arbitrary, despotic,or oppressive manner.City of Manila v. LaguioGR No. 11812712 April 2005
Tinga, J.
Malate Tourist DevelopmentCorporation (MTDC) owned aVictoria Court motel in theErmita-Malate area, which was being threatened to be closeddown by an Ordinance passed bythe City of Manila, which prohibited the operation of any business which adverselyaffected the social and moralwelfare of the community in thesaid area. The said ordinance provided that these saidestablishments were to be either W/N the ordinance is anoppressive exercise of police power.YES. Although the object of theordinance was the promotion of the social and moral values of thecommunity, the means employedfor the accomplishment thereowere unreasonable and undulyoppressive.An ordinance which permanentlyrestricts the use of property that itcannot be used for anyreasonable purpose goes beyondregulation and must berecognized as a taking of the property without justcompensation.The due process clause is alimitation upon the exercise of  police power.The police power granted to
2
 
Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal
closed down, relocated, or transformed into othewholesome types oestablishments.MTDC sought to have theordinance declaredunconstitutional. The Courtagreed with MTDC, andenjoined the City of Manila fromimplementing the ordinance.government units must always beexercised with utmostobservance of the rights of the people to due process and equal protection of the law. Individualrights may be adversely affectedonly to the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimatedemands of public interest or  public welfare.Obiter:
There are no pure placeswhere there are impure men.
 – Justice Tinga Nyahahaha.
MMDA v. Viron TransportationGR No. 17065615 August 2007PGMA issued EO 179, which provided for the establishment of a Mass Transport System for Greater Manila. Pursuant to thisEO, the Metro Manila Council of the MMDA cited the need toremove the bus terminals locatedalong major thoroughfares of Metro Manila.Viron, and later Mencorp, both provincial bus operators who had bus terminals that werethreatened to be removed, filed petitions alleging that the EOshould be declaredunconstitutional and illegal for transgressing the possessoryrights of owners and operators of  public land transportation unitsover their respective terminals.W/N the EO is a valid exerciseof police power. NO. As to the allegedconfiscatory character of the EO,it need only be stated that therespondents’ certificates of  public convenience confer no property right, and are merelicenses or privileges. As such,they must yield to legislationsafeguarding the people’sinterest. However, although theauthority of the President over the implementation of the Projectcannot be questioned, thedesignation of the MMDA as theimplementing agency for theProject may not be sustained.MMDA has no police power, letalone legislative power. In lightof the administrative nature of its powers and functions, theMMDA is devoid of authority toimplement the Project asenvisioned by the EO; hence, itcould not have been validlydesignated by the President toundertake the Project. It followsthat the MMDA cannot validlyorder the elimination of therespondents’ terminals.Police power rests primarily withthe legislature, but it may bedelegated.Measures calculated to promotethe safety and convenience of the people using the thoroughfares by the regulation of vehicular traffic present a proper subjectfor the exercise of police power.
3

Activity (90)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Mitchie Gumera liked this
Randall Rosado liked this
Randall Rosado liked this
anajuanito liked this
Black Phoenix liked this
Kai Raguindin liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->