CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II REVIEWER

JUDICIAL REVIEW
1. Actual Controversy
2. Proper Party
Direct Injury Principle one must be aggrieved or in the eminent danger of sustaining injury
OPOSA VS FACTORAN
We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and
for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the
succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility
insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned
ACTUAL INJURY VS POTENTIAL INJURY
Exceptions to the Direct Injury principle:
a. Citizens suit a. those questioning the factual basis of martial law or suspension of writ
can be raised by any citizen. b. any question as to the validity of the ratification of the
constitution.

Example: RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS VS DENR -The Rules of Procedure for

Environmental Cases allows filing of a citizen's suit. A citizen's suit under this rule allows any
Filipino citizen to file an action for the enforcement of environmental law on behalf of minors or
generations yet unborn. It is essentially a representative suit that allows persons who are not
real parties in interest to institute actions on behalf of the real party in interest.
The expansion of what constitutes "real party in interest" to include minors and generations yet
unborn is a recognition of this court's ruling in Oposa v. Factoran.
b. TAXPAYERS SUIT
Requirements:
1. Disbursement of Public Funds
2. Disbursement is Contrary to law

CONFISCATORY TAXES
c. VOTERS SUIT any action questioning the right to suffrage
d. CORPORATE ENTITY
LA BUGAL BLAAN vs Ramos
Real interest is not the kind of interest that concerns political law but locus standi

KILOSBAYAN VS MORATO
Interest must be personal and substantial
e. LEGISLATORS SUIT- when it impairs their legislative prerogatives

SENATE VS ERMITA
The infirm provisions of E.O. 464, however, allow the executive branch to evade
congressional requests for information without need of clearly asserting a right to do so
and/or proffering its reasons therefor. By the mere expedient of invoking said provisions,
the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is frustrated. That is
impermissible.
AKBAYAN VS AQUINO (JPEPA)
Petitioners need not show that they have any legal or special interest in the result, it
being sufficient to show that they are citizens and, therefore, part of the general public
which possesses the right. As the present petition is anchored on the right to information
and petitioners are all suing in their capacity as citizens and groups of citizens including
petitioners-members of the House of Representatives who additionally are suing in their
capacity as such, the standing of petitioners to file the present suit is grounded in
jurisprudence.

Can the government question its own laws?

Yes. PGI v DE VERA (PROBATION) state is a proper party indeed, the proper
party to bring this action. The state is always interested where the integrity of its
Constitution or statutes is involved.

Proper Party Rule may be set aside as a mere technical procedure at the discretion of the SC
when issue is of transcendental importance or paramount public interest.
Exceptions:
1. Patent Violation of the Constitution
2.
3. d
4. d

3. Earliest Opportunity
Pleading > Petition
It cannot be presented as evidence if it wasnt alleged
Exceptions:
1. When issue is jurisdiction
2. In criminal cases, anytime
3. In civil cases, in any stage if necessary to the determination of the case
4. Necessity of deciding constitutionality must be the lis mota of the case

Can the trial courts exercise judicial review?

Yes. Judicial Review is Judicial power which is vested in one Supreme Court and in
such other courts.
Sec. 5 presupposes that lower courts have review power but jurisdiction is binding
only to parties of said case.
EN BANC decisions requires majority vote of members. If majority if not obtained,
decision is sustained. A quorum of 8 must also be obtained.
If Unconstitutional- effects: confers no rights, imposes no duties and affords no protection,
creates no office
Operative Fact Doctrine exception to the general rule. Applies as a matter of fair play and
equity.
Araullo case- Operative Fact only applies under extra ordinary circumstances.
As a general rule, the nullification of an unconstitutional law or act carries with it the illegality of
its effects. However, in cases where nullification of the effects will result in inequity and injustice,
the operative fact doctrine may apply.57 In so ruling, the Court has essentially recognized the
impact on the beneficiaries and the country as a whole if its ruling would pave the way for the
nullification of the P144.378 Billions58 worth of infrastructure projects, social and economic
services funded through the DAP. Bearing in mind the disastrous impact of nullifying these
projects by virtue alone of the invalidation of certain acts and practices under the DAP, the Court
has upheld the efficacy of such DAP-funded projects by applying the operative fact doctrine.

INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE can be exercised even without prior reservation in the
constitution
- The state cannot exist without such
- Regulating
POLICE POWER- power to pass laws
Legal basis: 1. Salus Populi est Suprema Lex regulating rights for general welfare. If it only
benefits a few, it is an invalid exercise of police power.
2. Use your property in a manner that you will not harm what is not yours.
In the exercise of police power, public matter should be lawful and the means is also lawful - To
justify the State in thus interposing its authority in behalf of the public, it must appear, first, that
the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require
such interference; and second, that the means are reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. ..
Example: Carabao case

The protection of the general welfare is the particular function of the police power which both
restraints and is restrained by due process. The police power is simply defined as the power
inherent in the State to regulate liberty and property for the promotion of the general welfare.
We find that the challenged measure is an invalid exercise of the police power because the
method employed to conserve the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the purpose of the
law and, worse, is unduly oppressive. Due process is violated because the owner of the
property confiscated is denied the right to be heard in his defense and is immediately
condemned and punished.
WHO exercises the inherent powers?
Generally, they are lodged in the Congress. Police power because Congress pass laws.
Eminent Domain because Congress passes the appropriation law for payment of just
compensation and Taxation for uniformity.
Difference: Eminent Domain can be granted can be granted to public utility corporations
DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER- Sec 23 Art VI
1) Delegation of tariff powers to the President under Section 28(2) of Article VI of the
Constitution;
(2) Delegation of emergency powers to the President under Section 23(2) of Article VI of the
Constitution;
(3) Delegation to the people at large;
(4) Delegation to local governments; and
(5) Delegation to administrative bodies
For the President, only under two circumstances:
1. National emergency prevalent, urgent and affects the whole nation
2. War- only Congress can declare existence of war with 2/3 votes of all members of
each house voting separately
*Who determine existence of national emergency?
SC: Since the police and the AFP are under the direct supervision of the President as
Commander in Chief, the president is in the best position to assure faithful execution of the
laws.
*After the declaration, can President still exercise emergency powers? No. only Congress.
State of Lawlessness is merely a description of the condition. It cannot be a basis for the
declaration of martial law or emergency powers.
Delegation to admin bodies
Function- to implement and execute laws. Promulgate implementing rules and regulations.
These have the force and effect of laws.
Parameters:

1. Completeness Test
2. Sufficient Standard Test
GEROCHI VS DOE
A logical corollary to the doctrine of separation of powers is the principle of non-delegation of
powers, as expressed in the Latin maxim potestas delegata non delegari potest (what has been
delegated cannot be delegated). This is based on the ethical principle that such delegated
power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate through the
instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind of another. In the face
of the increasing complexity of modern life, delegation of legislative power to various specialized
administrative agencies is allowed as an exception to this principle.
Under the first test, the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the
legislature such that when it reaches the delegate, the only thing he will have to do is to enforce
it. The second test mandates adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to determine the
boundaries of the delegate's authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. One which
defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the public
agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be
effected.
The Court finds that the EPIRA, read and appreciated in its entirety, in relation to Sec. 34
thereof, is complete in all its essential terms and conditions, and that it contains sufficient
standards.
Disini vs Sec of Justice
Petitioners mainly contend that Congress invalidly delegated its power when it gave the
Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC) the power to formulate a national
cybersecurity plan without any sufficient standards or parameters for it to follow.
Here, the cybercrime law is complete in itself when it directed the CICC to formulate and
implement a national cybersecurity plan. Also, contrary to the position of the petitioners, the law
gave sufficient standards for the CICC to follow when it provided a definition of cybersecurity.
Cybersecurity refers to the collection of tools, policies, risk management approaches, actions,
training, best practices, assurance and technologies that can be used to protect cyber
environment and organization and users assets.104 This definition serves as the parameters
within which CICC should work in formulating the cybersecurity plan.ow.
SANTIAGO v RAMOS
Insofar as initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution is concerned, R.A. No. 6735
miserably failed to satisfy both requirements in subordinate legislation. The delegation of the
power to the COMELEC is then invalid.
DELEGATION TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS
RA 7160 Local Government Code - A local government is a political subdivision of a nation or
state which is constituted by law and has substantial control of local affairs. [16] Local government
units are the provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays, which exercise police power
through their respective legislative bodies.

MMDA vs Garin
1. a license to operate a motor vehicle is not a property right, but a privilege granted by the
state, which may be suspended or revoked by the state in the exercise of its police
power, in the interest of the public safety and welfare, subject to the procedural due
process requirements.
2. Rep. Act No. 7924 does not grant the MMDA with police power, let alone legislative
power, and that all its functions are administrative in nature. police power, as an inherent
attribute of sovereignty, is the power vested by the Constitution in the legislature to
make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and
ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as they
shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the subjects of
the same.
Having been lodged primarily in the National Legislature, it cannot be exercised by any
group or body of individuals not possessing legislative power. The National Legislature,
however, may delegate this power to the president and administrative boards as well as the
lawmaking bodies of municipal corporations or local government units (LGUs). Once delegated,
the agents can exercise only such legislative powers as are conferred on them by the national
lawmaking body.
3. MMDA is not a political unit of government. The power delegated to the MMDA is that
given to the Metro Manila Council to promulgate administrative rules and regulations in
the implementation of the MMDAs functions. There is no grant of authority to enact
ordinances and regulations for the general welfare of the inhabitants of the metropolis.

To what extent can they exercise the power?

Ans. They cannot pass laws repugnant to the constitution and those contrary to
statutes or existing laws passed by Congress which is the delegate.

MATAJAS v PRYCE PROPERTIES

PAGCOR is a corporation created directly by P.D. 1869 to help centralize and regulate all
games of chance, including casinos on land and sea within the territorial jurisdiction of the
Philippines.
Cagayan de Oro City, like other local political subdivisions, is empowered to enact ordinances
for the purposes indicated in the Local Government Code. It is expressly vested with the police
power under what is known as the General Welfare Clause now embodied in Section 16.
This section also authorizes the local government units to regulate properties and businesses
within their territorial limits in the interest of the general welfare.
The tests of a valid ordinance are well established. A long line of decisions 9 has held that to be
valid, an ordinance must conform to the following substantive requirements:
1) It must not contravene the constitution or any statute.

2) It must not be unfair or oppressive.

3) It must not be partial or discriminatory.
4) It must not prohibit but may regulate trade.
5) It must be general and consistent with public policy.
6) It must not be unreasonable.
We hold that the power of PAGCOR to centralize and regulate all games of chance, including
casinos on land and sea within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines, remains unimpaired.
P.D. 1869 has not been modified by the Local Government Code, which empowers the local
government units to prevent or suppress only those forms of gambling prohibited by law.
Casino gambling is authorized by P.D. 1869. This decree has the status of a statute that cannot
be amended or nullified by a mere ordinance.
CRUZ VS PARAS
Whether or not a municipal corporation c an, prohibit the exercise of a lawful trade, the operation
of night clubs, and the pursuit of a lawful occupation, such clubs employing hostesses

Police power is granted to municipal corporations in general terms as follows: "General power of
council to enact ordinances and make regulations. - The municipal council shall enact such
ordinances and make such regulations, not repugnant to law, as may be necessary to carry into
effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred upon it by law and such as shall seem
necessary and proper to provide for the health and safety, promote the prosperity, improve the
morals, peace, good order, comfort, and convenience of the municipality and the inhabitants
thereof, and for the protection of property therein.
What was involved is a measure not embraced within the regulatory power but an exercise of an
assumed power to prohibit. Moreover, while it was pointed out in the aforesaid Ermita-Malate
Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. decision that there must be a factual foundation of
invalidity, it was likewise made clear that there is no need to satisfy such a requirement if a
statute were void on its face. That it certainly is if the power to enact such ordinance is at the
most dubious and under the present Local Government Code non-existent.
DELEGATION OF POWER TO THE PEOPLE
Initiative- people directly proposing ordinance or statute
Referendum- Congress proposes then the people approve or reject.
There is no compensation in the exercise of police power where the destruction is due to
necessity.
Ex. Where a building is destroyed to save squatters from fire. There can be no just
compensation but the remedy is to sue the squatters for unjust enrichment at ones expense.
SAFGUARDS TO POLICE POWER:
1. Due Process
2. Equal Protection

3. Non Impairment of Contracts

SENIOR CITIZENS ACT
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the
expropriator. The measure is not the takers gain but the owners loss. The word just is used to intensify the
meaning of the word compensation, and to convey the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the
property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample. A tax deduction does not offer full
reimbursement of the senior citizen discount. As such, it would not meet the definition of just
compensation.
The law is a legitimate exercise of police power which, similar to the power of eminent domain, has
general welfare for its object. Police power is not capable of an exact definition, but has been purposely
veiled in general terms to underscore its comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and provide enough
room for an efficient and flexible response to conditions and circumstances, thus assuring the greatest
benefits. [22] Accordingly, it has been described as the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of
powers, extending as it does to all the great public needs. [23] It is [t]he power vested in the legislature by
the constitution to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and
ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the constitution, as they shall judge to be for
the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and of the subjects of the same. [24]
For this reason, when the conditions so demand as determined by the legislature, property rights must
bow to the primacy of police power because property rights, though sheltered by due process, must yield
to general welfare.
EMINENT DOMAIN
Basis:
1. Regalian Doctrine - Generally, under this concept, private title to land must be traced to some
grant, express or implied, from the Spanish Crown or its successors, the American Colonial
Government, and thereafter, the Philippine Republic.
This does not negate ancestral title. Ancestral lands are held by cultural community under a
native title. This does not belong to the state because they were not conquered. Therefore,
remains private.
2. Genuine necessity

Eminent Domain is the power while expropriation is the procedure in taking property by virtue of said
power.

Situation: If there was already prior consent but parties were not able to reach agreement as to price. Can
the government expropriate the property? No since there was already consent. The remedy is to file a civil
action for specific performance.
Requisites:
1. Taking of private property
2. For public use
3. After payment of just compensation
4. And under due process
Taking of property

Eviction is not necessary

Example: Prohibiting owner to ask for parking fees is taking of income tantamount to
government taking of property.
SOLGEN VS AYALALAND
Police power is the power of promoting the public welfare by restraining and regulating
the use of liberty and property. It is usually exerted in order to merely regulate the use
and enjoyment of the property of the owner. The power to regulate, however, does not
include the power to prohibit. A fortiori, the power to regulate does not include the power
to confiscate. 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;
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 the owner.
title to and/or possession of the parking facilities remain/s with respondents, the
prohibition against their collection of parking fees from the public, for the use of said
facilities, is already tantamount to a taking or confiscation of their properties. The State is
not only requiring that respondents devote a portion of the latters properties for use as
parking spaces, but is also mandating that they give the public access to said parking
spaces for free. Such is already an excessive intrusion into the property rights of
respondents. Not only are they being deprived of the right to use a portion of their
properties as they wish, they are further prohibited from profiting from its use or even
just recovering therefrom the expenses for the maintenance and operation of the required
parking facilities.

Where police power use eminent domain

REPUBLIC VS HEIRS OF CASTILDE?