You are on page 1of 19

091818 military training school, obtained preliminary restraining orders prohibiting

MEYER V. NEBRASKA appellants from enforcing Oregon’s Compulsory Education Act. The Act
Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff was convicted for teaching a child German under required all parents and guardians to send children between 8 and 16 years to a
a Nebraska statute that outlawed the teaching of foreign languages to students public school. The appellants appealed the granting of the preliminary
that had not yet completed the eighth grade. restraining orders.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from Issue. Does the Act unreasonably interfere with the liberty of parents and
creating legislation that restricts liberty interests when the legislation is not guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their
reasonably related to an acceptable state objective. control?

Facts. Plaintiff was convicted for teaching a child German under a Nebraska Held. The Act violates the 14th Amendment because it interferes with protected
statute that outlawed the teaching of foreign languages to students that had not liberty interests and has no reasonable relationship to any purpose within the
yet completed the eighth grade. The Supreme Court of Nebraska upheld the competency of the state.
conviction. The Appellees have standing because the result of enforcing the Act would be
destruction of the appellees’ schools. The state has the power to regulate all
Issue. Does the statute as construed and applied unreasonably infringe on the schools, but parents and guardians have the right and duty to choose the
liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment? appropriate preparation for their children.
Held. The statute as applied is unconstitutional because it infringes on the
liberty interests of the plaintiff and fails to reasonably relate to any end within Discussion. While the state has the right to insure that children receive a
the competency of the state. proper education, the 14th Amendment provides parents and guardians with a
The Fourteenth Amendment encompasses more than merely the freedom from liberty interest in their choice in the mode in which their children are educated.
bodily restraint. The state argues that the purpose of the statute is to encourage
the English language to be the native tongue of all children raised in the state. PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, ETC.,
Nonetheless, the protection of the Constitution extends to those who speak petitioner,
other languages. Education is a fundamental liberty interest that must be vs. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION and the BOARD OF TEXTBOOKS,
protected, and mere knowledge of the German language cannot be reasonably respondents. G.R. No. L-5279 October 31, 1955
regarded as harmful.
Facts: Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities assailed the
Discussion. Liberty interests may not be interfered with by the states when the constitutionality of Act No. 2706, known as the “Act making the Inspection and
interference is arbitrary and not reasonably related to a purpose which the state Recognition of private schools and colleges obligatory for the Secretary of Public
may permissively regulate. Instruction.”

PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS As contended by PACU, the Act is unconstitutional because of the following
Citation. Brief Fact Summary. Appellees, two non-public schools, were reasons: 1) The act deprives the owner of the school and colleges as well as
protected by a preliminary restraining order prohibiting appellants from teachers and parents of liberty and property without due process of law; 2) it
enforcing an Oregon Act that required parents and guardians to send their will also deprive the parents of their natural rights and duty to rear their
children to public school. Appellants appealed the order. children for civic efficiency; and 3) its provisions conferred on the Secretary of
Education unlimited powers and discretion to prescribe rules and standards
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The 14th Amendment provides a liberty interest in a constitute towards unlawful delegation of legislative powers.
parent’s or guardian’s right to decide the mode in which their children are
educated. State’s may not usurp this right when the questioned legislation does Additionally, the association contended that the Constitution guaranteed every
not reasonably relate to a viable state interest. citizen the right to own and operate a school and any law requiring previous
governmental approval or permit before such person could exercise the said
Facts. Appellee the Society of Sisters, a corporation with the power to establish right.
and maintain academies or schools and Appellee Hill Military Academy, a
private organization conducting an elementary, college preparatory, and
On the contrary, the Department of Education maintained that 1) the matters ISSUE: Whether or not the appointment of said women workers should be
does not contain justiciable controversy and thus does not need court decision confirmed by the Civil Service Commissioner.
or intervention; 2) petitioners are inestoppels to challenge the validity of the
said act; and 3) the Act is constitutionally valid. HELD: Yes, the appointments must be confirmed. The basis of Subido was not
on any law or rule but simply on his own concept of what policy to pursue, in
Section 1 of Act No. 2706 provides that “It shall be the duty of the Secretary of this instance in accordance with his own personal predilection. Here he
Public Instruction to maintain a general standard of efficiency in all private appeared to be unalterably convinced that to allow women laborers to work
schools and colleges of the Philippines so that the same shall furnish adequate outside their offices as street sweepers would run counter to Filipino tradition.
instruction to the public, in accordance with the class and grade of instruction A public official must be able to point to a particular provision of law or rule
given in them, and for this purpose said Secretary or his duly-authorized justifying the exercise of a challenged authority.
representative shall have authority to advise, inspect, and regulate said schools
and colleges in order to determine the efficiency of instruction given in the Nothing is better settled in the law than that a public official exercises power,
same.” not rights. The government itself is merely an agency through which the will of
the state is expressed and enforced. Its officers therefore are likewise agents
Issue: Whether or not Act No. 2706 is unconstitutional. entrusted with the responsibility of discharging its functions. As such there is no
presumption that they are empowered to act. There must be a delegation of
Held: No, Act No. 2706 is constitutional. such authority, either express or implied. In the absence of a valid grant, they
are devoid of power. It must be conceded that departmental zeal may not be
The organic law provides that the state has the power to regulate private permitted to outrun the authority conferred by statute. Neither the high dignity
schools for the development of morals, civic efficiency, and scientific aptitude of of the office nor the righteousness of the motive then is an acceptable substitute.
students. The court found no justiciable controversy. The power of the courts to Otherwise the rule of law becomes a myth. Such an eventuality, we must take all
declare a law unconstitutional arises only when the interest of litigant require pains to avoid.
the use of judicial authority for their protection against actual interference. As
such, judicial power is limited to the decision of actual cases and controversies. OPOSA VS. FACTORAN Case Digest (G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993)
Thus, the court does not sit to adjudicate a mere academic question, such as that
provided by the petitioner. On this phase of the litigation, the court conclude
that there has been no undue delegation of legislative power even if the FACTS: The plaintiffs in this case are all minors duly represented and joined by
petitioners appended a list of circulars and memoranda issued by the their parents. The first complaint was filed as a taxpayer's class suit at the
Department of Education. Branch 66 (Makati, Metro Manila), of the Regional Trial Court, National capital
Judicial Region against defendant (respondent) Secretary of the Department of
ANTONIO VILLEGAS VS ABELARDO SUBIDO Environment and Natural Reasources (DENR). Plaintiffs alleged that they are
109 SCRA 1 – Political Law – Women Workers entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource treasure
that is the country's virgin tropical forests. They further asseverate that they
Facts: Then Metro Manila Mayor Antonio Villegas approved the appointing of represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn and asserted that
91 women street sweepers in the City of Manila. But the appointing would still continued deforestation have caused a distortion and disturbance of the
have to be approved by the Office of Civil Service Commission under ecological balance and have resulted in a host of environmental tragedies.
Commissioner Abelardo Subido. Subido refused to extend approval to such
appointments on the ground that appointing women to manual labor is against Plaintiffs prayed that judgement be rendered ordering the respondent, his
Memorandum Circular No. 18 series of 1964. Subido pointed out that putting agents, representatives and other persons acting in his behalf to cancel all
women workers with men workers outside under the heat of the sun and existing Timber License Agreement (TLA) in the country and to cease and desist
placing them under manual labor exposes them to contempt and ridicule and from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new TLAs.
constitutes a violation of the traditional dignity and respect accorded Filipino
womanhood. Villegas however pointed out that the said Memo has already been
set aside by the Office of the President hence the same is no longer in effect.
Defendant, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the healthful ecology. Hence, the full protection thereof requires that no further
complaint had no cause of action against him and that it raises a political TLAs should be renewed or granted.
question.
After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, the Court finds it to be
The RTC Judge sustained the motion to dismiss, further ruling that granting of adequate enough to show, prima facie, the claimed violation of their rights.
the relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is
prohibited by the Constitution. Second Issue: Political Issue.

Plaintiffs (petitioners) thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari and Second paragraph, Section 1 of Article VIII of the constitution provides for the
asked the court to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the ground that expanded jurisdiction vested upon the Supreme Court. It allows the Court to
the respondent RTC Judge gravely abused his discretion in dismissing the rule upon even on the wisdom of the decision of the Executive and Legislature
action. and to declare their acts as invalid for lack or excess of jurisdiction because it is
tainted with grave abuse of discretion
ISSUES:
Third Issue: Violation of the non-impairment clause.
(1) Whether or not the plaintiffs have a cause of action.
The Court held that the Timber License Agreement is an instrument by which
(2) Whether or not the complaint raises a political issue. the state regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end
that public welfare is promoted. It is not a contract within the purview of the
(3) Whether or not the original prayer of the plaintiffs result in the impairment due process clause thus, the non-impairment clause cannot be invoked. It can be
of contracts. validly withdraw whenever dictated by public interest or public welfare as in
this case. The granting of license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it
RULING: First Issue: Cause of Action. property or property rights.
Respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a Moreover, the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations of
specific legal right violated by the respondent Secretary for which any relief is contract is limit by the exercise by the police power of the State, in the interest
provided by law. The Court did not agree with this. The complaint focuses on of public health, safety, moral and general welfare. In short, the non-impairment
one fundamental legal right -- the right to a balanced and healthful ecology clause must yield to the police power of the State.
which is incorporated in Section 16 Article II of the Constitution. The said right
carries with it the duty to refrain from impairing the environment and implies, The instant petition, being impressed with merit, is hereby GRANTED and the
among many other things, the judicious management and conservation of the RTC decision is SET ASIDE.
country's forests. Section 4 of E.O. 192 expressly mandates the DENR to be the
primary government agency responsible for the governing and supervising the GUINGONA, JR. VS. CARAGUE G.R. No. 94571. April 22, 1991
exploration, utilization, development and conservation of the country's natural
resources. The policy declaration of E.O. 192 is also substantially re-stated in FACTS: The 1990 budget consists of P98.4 Billion in automatic appropriation
Title XIV Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987. Both E.O. 192 and (with P86.8 Billion for debt service) and P155.3 Billion appropriated under RA
Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives which will serve as the 6831, otherwise known as the General Approriations Act, or a total of P233.5
bases for policy formation, and have defined the powers and functions of the Billion, while the appropriations for the DECS amount to P27,017,813,000.00.
DENR. Thus, right of the petitioners (and all those they represent) to a balanced
and healthful ecology is as clear as DENR's duty to protect and advance the said The said automatic appropriation for debt service is authorized by PD No. 18,
right. entitled “ Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act Numbered Four
Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty, as Amended (Re: Foreign Borrowing Act), “by
A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the correlative duty or PD No. 1177, entitled “Revising the Budget Process in Order to Institutionalize
obligation to respect or protect or respect the same gives rise to a cause of the Budgetary Innovations of the New Society,” and by PD No.1967, entitled “An
action. Petitioners maintain that the granting of the TLA, which they claim was Act Strengthening the Guarantee and Payment Positions of the Republic of the
done with grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balance and Philippines on its Contingent Liabilities Arising out of Relent and Guaranteed
Loans by Appropriating Funds For The Purpose.”
The petitioners were questioning the constitutionality of the automatic
appropriation for debt service, it being higher than the budget for education,
therefore it is against Section 5(5), Article XIV of the Constitution which
mandates to “assign the highest budgetary priority to education.”

ISSUE: Whether or not the automatic appropriation for debt service is


unconstitutional; it being higher than the budget for education.

HELD: No. While it is true that under Section 5(5), Article XIV of the Constitution
Congress is mandated to “assign the highest budgetary priority to education,” it
does not thereby follow that the hands of Congress are so hamstrung as to
deprive it the power to respond to the imperatives of the national interest and
for the attainment of other state policies or objectives.

Congress is certainly not without any power, guided only by its good judgment,
BENJAMIN VICTORIANO VS ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS’ UNION
to provide an appropriation, that can reasonably service our enormous debt…It
is not only a matter of honor and to protect the credit standing of the country. 59 SCRA 54 – Political Law – Primacy of the Constitution over Contractual Rights
More especially, the very survival of our economy is at stake. Thus, if in the
process Congress appropriated an amount for debt service bigger than the FACTS: Benjamin Victoriano, an Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) member, has been an
share allocated to education, the Court finds and so holds that said employee of the Elizalde Rope Factory (ERF) since 1958. He was also a member
appropriation cannot be thereby assailed as unconstitutional. of the EPWU (Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union). Under the collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) between ERF and EPWU, a close shop agreement is being
enforced which means that employment in the factory relies on the membership
in the EPWU; that in order to retain employment in the said factory one must be
a member of the said Union. In 1962, Victoriano tendered his resignation from
EPWU claiming that as per RA 3350 he is an exemption to the close shop
agreement by virtue of his being a member of the INC because apparently in the
INC, one is forbidden from being a member of any labor union. It was only in
1974 that his resignation from the Union was acted upon by EPWU which
notified ERF about it. ERF then moved to terminate Victoriano due to his non-
membership from the EPWU. EPWU and ERF reiterated that he is not exempt
from the close shop agreement because RA 3350, which provides that close
shop agreements shall not cover members of any religious sects which prohibit
affiliation of their members in any such labor organization, is unconstitutional
and that said law violates the EPWU’s and ERF’s legal/contractual rights.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 3350 is unconstitutional.
HELD: No. The right to religion prevails over contractual or legal rights. As such,
an INC member may refuse to join a labor union and despite the fact that there
is a close shop agreement in the factory where he was employed, his
employment could not be validly terminated for his non-membership in the
majority therein. Further, the right to join a union includes the right not to join a
union. The law is not unconstitutional. It recognizes both the rights of unions
and employers to enforce terms of contracts and at the same time it recognizes
the workers’ right to join or not to join union. RA 3550 recognizes as well the These are four consolidated cases questioning the constitutionality of
primacy of a constitutional right over a contractual right the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Act (R.A. No. 6657 and related
ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINE COCONUT DESICCATORS VS PHILIPPINE laws i.e., Agrarian Land Reform Code or R.A. No. 3844).
COCONUT AUTHORITY Brief background: Article XIII of the Constitution on Social Justice and
286 SCRA 109 – Political Law – Free Enterprise Human Rights includes a call for the adoption by the State of an
agrarian reform program. The State shall, by law, undertake an
FACTs: The Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) was created by Presidential agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular
Decree No. 232 as an independent public corporation to promote the rapid
integrated development and growth of the coconut and other palm oil industry
farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the
in all its aspects and to ensure that coconut farmers become direct participants lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just
in, and beneficiaries of, such development and growth through a regulatory share of the fruits thereof. RA 3844 was enacted in 1963. P.D. No. 27
scheme set up by law. was promulgated in 1972 to provide for the compulsory acquisition
PCA is also in charge of the issuing of licenses to would-be coconut plant of private lands for distribution among tenant-farmers and to specify
operators. In March 1993, however, PCA issued Board Resolution No. 018-93 maximum retention limits for landowners. In 1987, President
which no longer require those wishing to engage in coconut processing to apply Corazon Aquino issued E.O. No. 228, declaring full land ownership in
for licenses as a condition for engaging in such business. The purpose of which favor of the beneficiaries of PD 27 and providing for the valuation of
is to promote free enterprise unhampered by protective regulations and still unvalued lands covered by the decree as well as the manner of
unnecessary bureaucratic red tapes. But this caused cut-throat competition their payment. In 1987, P.P. No. 131, instituting a comprehensive
among operators specifically in congested areas, underselling, smuggling, and
the decline of coconut-based commodities. The Association of Philippine
agrarian reform program (CARP) was enacted; later, E.O. No. 229,
Coconut Desiccators (APCD) then filed a petition for mandamus to compel PCA providing the mechanics for its (PP131’s) implementation, was also
to revoke B.R. No. 018-93. enacted. Afterwhich is the enactment of R.A. No. 6657,
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law in 1988. This law, while
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition should be granted.
considerably changing the earlier mentioned enactments,
HELD: Yes. Our Constitutions, beginning with the 1935 document, have nevertheless gives them suppletory effect insofar as they are not
repudiated laissez-faire as an economic principle. Although the present
inconsistent with its provisions.
Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy, it nonetheless reserves to the
government the power to intervene whenever necessary to promote the general [Two of the consolidated cases are discussed below]
welfare. As such, free enterprise does not call for the removal of “protective
regulations” for the benefit of the general public. This is so because under Art. G.R. No. 78742: (Association of Small Landowners vs Secretary)
12, Secs. 6 and 9, it is very clear that the government reserves the power to The Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. sought
intervene whenever necessary to promote the general welfare and when the
public interest so requires.
exception from the land distribution scheme provided for in R.A.
6657. The Association is comprised of landowners of ricelands and
ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC. VS cornlands whose landholdings do not exceed 7 hectares. They invoke
SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM that since their landholdings are less than 7 hectares, they should not
be forced to distribute their land to their tenants under R.A. 6657 for
175 SCRA 343 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – Bill of Rights –
they themselves have shown willingness to till their own land. In
Equal Protection – Valid Classification
short, they want to be exempted from agrarian reform program
Eminent Domain – Just Compensation because they claim to belong to a different class.
G.R. No. 79777: (Manaay vs Juico)
Nicolas Manaay questioned the validity of the agrarian reform laws properties must be made to share the burden of implementing land
(PD 27, EO 228, and 229) on the ground that these laws already reform must be rejected. There is a substantial distinction between
valuated their lands for the agrarian reform program and that the these two classes of owners that is clearly visible except to those who
specific amount must be determined by the Department of Agrarian will not see. There is no need to elaborate on this matter. In any
Reform (DAR). Manaay averred that this violated the principle in event, the Congress is allowed a wide leeway in providing for a valid
eminent domain which provides that only courts can determine just classification. Its decision is accorded recognition and respect by the
compensation. This, for Manaay, also violated due process for under courts of justice except only where its discretion is abused to the
the constitution, no property shall be taken for public use without detriment of the Bill of Rights. In the contrary, it appears that
just compensation. Congress is right in classifying small landowners as part of the
agrarian reform program.
Manaay also questioned the provision which states that landowners
may be paid for their land in bonds and not necessarily in cash. 2. No. It is true that the determination of just compensation is a
Manaay averred that just compensation has always been in the form power lodged in the courts. However, there is no law which prohibits
of money and not in bonds. administrative bodies like the DAR from determining just
compensation. In fact, just compensation can be that amount agreed
ISSUE:
upon by the landowner and the government – even without judicial
1. Whether or not there was a violation of the equal protection clause. intervention so long as both parties agree. The DAR can determine
2. Whether or not there is a violation of due process. just compensation through appraisers and if the landowner agrees,
then judicial intervention is not needed. What is contemplated by law
3. Whether or not just compensation, under the agrarian reform however is that, the just compensation determined by an
program, must be in terms of cash. administrative body is merely preliminary. If the landowner does not
HELD: agree with the finding of just compensation by an administrative
body, then it can go to court and the determination of the latter shall
1. No. The Association had not shown any proof that they belong to a be the final determination. This is even so provided by RA 6657:
different class exempt from the agrarian reform program. Under the
law, classification has been defined as the grouping of persons or Section 16 (f): Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the
things similar to each other in certain particulars and different from matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just
each other in these same particulars. To be valid, it must conform to compensation.
the following requirements: 3. No. Money as [sole] payment for just compensation is merely a
(1) it must be based on substantial distinctions; concept in traditional exercise of eminent domain. The agrarian
reform program is a revolutionary exercise of eminent domain. The
(2) it must be germane to the purposes of the law; program will require billions of pesos in funds if all compensation
(3) it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and have to be made in cash – if everything is in cash, then the
government will not have sufficient money hence, bonds, and other
(4) it must apply equally to all the members of the class.
securities, i.e., shares of stocks, may be used for just compensation.
Equal protection simply means that all persons or things similarly
situated must be treated alike both as to the rights conferred and the PLDT VS NTC (190 SCRA 717)
liabilities imposed. The Association have not shown that they belong
to a different class and entitled to a different treatment. The Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs National Telecommunications
Commission
argument that not only landowners but also owners of other
190 SCRA 717 [GR No. 88404 October 18, 1990]
Facts: On June 22, 1958, Republic Act No. 2090, was enacted otherwise known series of transfers of shares starting in 1964 until 1987. The approval of the
as “An Act Granting Felix Alberto and Company, Incorporated, a franchise to NTC may be deemed to have been met when it authorized the issuance of the
establish radio stations for domestic and transoceanic telecommunications.” provisional authority to ETCI. There was full disclosure before the NTC of the
Felix Alberto & Co. Inc. was the original corporate name, which was changed to transfers. In fact, the NTC order of November 12,1987 required ETCI to submit
ETCI with amendment of the articles of incorporation in 1964. Much later, its present capital and ownership structure. Further, ETCI even filed a motion
“CELLCOM Inc.” was the name sought to be adopted before the Securities and before the NTC, dated November 8, 1987 or more than a year prior to the grant
Exchange Commission, but this was withdrawn and abandoned.. On May 13, of provisional authority, seeking approval of the increase in its capital stock
1987, alleging urgent public need, ETCI filed an application with public from Php360,000 to Php40,000,000 and the stock transfers made by its
respondent NTC for the issuance of a certificate of public convenience and stockholders.
necessity to construct, install, establish, operate, and maintain a cellular mobile
telephone system and an alpha numeric paging system in Metro Manila and in A distinction should be made between shares of stock, which are owned by
the Southern Luzon regions, with prayer for provisional authority to operate stockholders, the sale of which requires only NTC approval, and the franchise
phase A of its proposal within Metro Manila. PLDT filed an opposition with itself which is owned by the corporation as the grantee thereof, the sale or
motion to dismiss, however NTC over ruled it. NTC granted ETC provisional transfer of which requires congressional sanction. Since stockholders own the
authority to install, operate, and maintain a cellular mobile telephone system shares of stock, they may dispose of the same as they see fit. They may not,
initially in Metro Manila subject to terms and conditions, one of which is that however, transfer or assign the property of a corporation, like its franchise. In
ETCI and PLDT shall enter into an interconnection agreement for the provision other words, even if the original stockholders had transferred their shares to
of adequate interconnection facilities between applicant’s cellular mobile another group of shareholders, the franchise granted to the corporation subsists
telephone switch and the public switched telephone network and shall jointly as long as the corporation as an entity, continues to exist. The franchise is not
submit such interconnection agreement to the commission for approval ETCI thereby invalidated by the transfer of shares. A corporation has a personality
admits that in 1964, the Albertos, as original owners of more than 40% of the separate and distinct from that of each stockholder. It has the right to continuity
outstanding capital stock sold their holdings to Orbes. In 1968, the Albertos or perpetual succession.
reacquired the shares they had sold to the Orbes. In 1987, the Albertos sold
more than 40% of their shares to Horacio Yalung. Thereafter, the present
Pamatong vs. Comelec
stockholders acquired their ETCI shares. Moreover, in 1964, ETCI had increased
its capital stock from Php40,000 to Php360,000; and in 1987, from Php360,000
Prefatory Statement:
to Php40,000,000.
Last December 1 was the deadline for the filing of Certificate of Candidacies
Issue: Whether or not the transfers in 1987 of the shares of stock to the new (COCs) for the 2010 Elections. In the end, a total of 99 filed their COCs for
stockholders amount to a transfer of ETCI’s franchise which needs President. Among the lesser known presidentiables include someone called
congressional approval pursuant to RA 2090. "Manok" (because apparently he can mimic a cock's crow), a six-star general, and
a future "emperor of the world." Considering that we would be having automated
Held: No. Section 10 of RA 2090 is directed to the grantee of the franchise, elections next year and the list of all candidates are to be written in the ballots
which is the corporation itself and refers to a sale, lease or assignment of that while voters are supposed to shade the circles corresponding to their choices,
franchise. It does not include the transfer or sale of shares of stock of a would all 99 candidates be included? No. Aside from disqualification petitions filed
corporation by the latter’s stockholders. against the aspirants, the Comelec can also motu propio deny due course to the
COCs. Aside from the qualifications set forth under the Constitution, a candidate
The sale of shares of stock of a public utility is governed by another law, in should also have the capacity and resources to launch a national campaign.
section 20 (h) of the Public Service Act (CA 146). Pursuant thereto, the public
service commission (now NTC) is the government agency vested with the Under the Constitution (Article II, Section 26), "the State shall guarantee equal
authority to approve the transfer of more than 40% of the subscribed capital access to opportunities for public service xxx." Would the Comelec's act of
stock of a telecommunications company to a single transferee. disqualifying the so-called "nuisance" candidates violate this constitutional
provision?
In other words, transfer of shares of a public utility corporation need only NTC
approval, not congressional authorization. What transpired in ETCI were a
CASE DIGEST not properly defined. Broadly written, the myriad of claims that can be
subsumed under this rubric appear to be entirely open-ended. Words and
Rev. Ely Velez Pamatong Vs. Commission on Elections phrases such as "equal access," "opportunities," and "public service" are
G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004 susceptible to countless interpretations owing to their inherent impreciseness.
Certainly, it was not the intention of the framers to inflict on the people an
operative but amorphous foundation from which innately unenforceable rights
FACTS: Petitioner Pamatong filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for may be sourced.
President. Respondent COMELEC declared petitioner and 35 others as nuisance
candidates who could not wage a nationwide campaign and/or are not The privilege of equal access to opportunities to public office may be subjected
nominated by a political party or are not supported by a registered political to limitations. Some valid limitations specifically on the privilege to seek
party with a national constituency. elective office are found in the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code on
"Nuisance Candidates.” As long as the limitations apply to everybody equally
Pamatong filed a Petition For Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court without discrimination, however, the equal access clause is not violated.
claiming that the COMELEC violated his right to "equal access to opportunities Equality is not sacrificed as long as the burdens engendered by the limitations
for public service" under Section 26, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, by are meant to be borne by any one who is minded to file a certificate of
limiting the number of qualified candidates only to those who can afford to candidacy. In the case at bar, there is no showing that any person is exempt
wage a nationwide campaign and/or are nominated by political parties. The from the limitations or the burdens which they create.
COMELEC supposedly erred in disqualifying him since he is the most qualified
among all the presidential candidates, i.e., he possesses all the constitutional The rationale behind the prohibition against nuisance candidates and the
and legal qualifications for the office of the president, he is capable of waging a disqualification of candidates who have not evinced a bona fide intention to run
national campaign since he has numerous national organizations under his for office is easy to divine. The State has a compelling interest to ensure that its
leadership, he also has the capacity to wage an international campaign since he electoral exercises are rational, objective, and orderly. Towards this end, the
has practiced law in other countries, and he has a platform of government. State takes into account the practical considerations in conducting elections.
Inevitably, the greater the number of candidates, the greater the opportunities
ISSUE: Is there a constitutional right to run for or hold public office? for logistical confusion, not to mention the increased allocation of time and
resources in preparation for the election. The organization of an election with
RULING: No. What is recognized in Section 26, Article II of the Constitution is bona fide candidates standing is onerous enough. To add into the mix
merely a privilege subject to limitations imposed by law. It neither bestows such candidates with no serious intentions or capabilities to run a viable campaign
a right nor elevates the privilege to the level of an enforceable right. There is would actually impair the electoral process. This is not to mention the
nothing in the plain language of the provision which suggests such a thrust or candidacies which are palpably ridiculous so as to constitute a one-note joke.
justifies an interpretation of the sort. The poll body would be bogged by irrelevant minutiae covering every step of
the electoral process, most probably posed at the instance of these nuisance
The "equal access" provision is a subsumed part of Article II of the Constitution, candidates. It would be a senseless sacrifice on the part of the State.
entitled "Declaration of Principles and State Policies." The provisions under the
Article are generally considered not self-executing, and there is no plausible The question of whether a candidate is a nuisance candidate or not is both legal
reason for according a different treatment to the "equal access" provision. Like and factual. The basis of the factual determination is not before this Court. Thus,
the rest of the policies enumerated in Article II, the provision does not contain the remand of this case for the reception of further evidence is in order. The SC
any judicially enforceable constitutional right but merely specifies a guideline remanded to the COMELEC for the reception of further evidence, to determine
for legislative or executive action. The disregard of the provision does not give the question on whether petitioner Elly Velez Lao Pamatong is a nuisance
rise to any cause of action before the courts. candidate as contemplated in Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code.

Obviously, the provision is not intended to compel the State to enact positive Obiter Dictum: One of Pamatong's contentions was that he was an international
measures that would accommodate as many people as possible into public lawyer and is thus more qualified compared to the likes of Erap, who was only a
office. Moreover, the provision as written leaves much to be desired if it is to be high school dropout. Under the Constitution (Article VII, Section 2), the only
regarded as the source of positive rights. It is difficult to interpret the clause as requirements are the following: (1) natural-born citizen of the Philippines; (2)
operative in the absence of legislation since its effective means and reach are registered voter; (3) able to read and write; (4) at least forty years of age on the
day of the election; and (5) resident of the Philippines for at least ten years considering the public offices they were holding at the time the loans were
immediately preceding such election. alleged to have been granted. It cannot be denied that because of the interest
they generate and their newsworthiness, public figures, most especially those
At any rate, Pamatong was eventually declared a nuisance candidate and was
holding responsible positions in government, enjoy a more limited right to
disqualified.
privacy as compared to ordinary individuals, their actions being subject to
VALMONTE vs BELMONTE closer public scrutiny The "transactions" used here I suppose is generic and,
G.R. No. 74930 February 13, 1989 RICARDO VALMONTE, OSWALDO therefore, it can cover both steps leading to a contract, and already a
CARBONELL, DOY DEL CASTILLO, ROLANDO BARTOLOME, LEO OBLIGAR, JUN consummated contract, Considering the intent of the framers of the Constitution
GUTIERREZ, REYNALDO BAGATSING, JUN "NINOY" ALBA, PERCY LAPID, which, though not binding upon the Court, are nevertheless persuasive, and
ROMMEL CORRO and ROLANDO FADUL, petitioners, vs. FELICIANO considering further that government-owned and controlled corporations,
BELMONTE, JR., respondent. whether performing proprietary or governmental functions are accountable to
the people, the Court is convinced that transactions entered into by the GSIS, a
FACTS : Petitioners in this special civil action for mandamus with preliminary government-controlled corporation created by special legislation are within the
injunction invoke their right to information and pray that respondent be ambit of the people's right to be informed pursuant to the constitutional policy
directed: (a) to furnish petitioners the list of the names of the Batasang of transparency in government dealings. Although citizens are afforded the right
Pambansa members belonging to the UNIDO and PDP-Laban who were able to to information and, pursuant thereto, are entitled to "access to official records,"
secure clean loans immediately before the February 7 election thru the the Constitution does not accord them a right to compel custodians of official
intercession/marginal note of the then First Lady Imelda Marcos; and/or (b) to records to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like in their desire to
furnish petitioners with certified true copies of the documents evidencing their acquire information on matters of public concern.
respective loans; and/or (c) to allow petitioners access to the public records for
the subject information On June 20, 1986, apparently not having yet received LEGASPI V. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
the reply of the Government Service and Insurance System (GSIS) Deputy Case Summary and Outcome
General Counsel, petitioner Valmonte wrote respondent another letter, saying The Supreme Court of the Philippines held that the government agencies have
that for failure to receive a reply, "(W)e are now considering ourselves free to no discretion to refuse disclosure of, or access to, information of public concern
do whatever action necessary within the premises to pursue our desired because the Constitution guarantees access to such information. The Court also
objective in pursuance of public interest." held that a citizen does not need to show any legal or special interest in order to
establish his or her right to information, and that the State bears the burden of
ISSUE : WON Valmonte, et. al. are entitled as citizens and taxpayers to inquire proving that the information is either exempt from disclosure by law or that it is
upon GSIS records on behest loans given by the former First Lady Imelda not of public concern.
Marcos to Batasang Pambansa members belonging to the UNIDO and PDP-
Laban political parties. Facts: Valentin Legaspi, a citizen of the Philippines, had requested information
from the Civil Service Commission regarding the civil service eligibility of
HELD : Respondent has failed to cite any law granting the GSIS the privilege of sanitation employees in the Health Department of Cebu City. The Commission
confidentiality as regards the documents subject of this petition. His position is rejected the request asserting that Legaspi was not entitled to the information.
apparently based merely on considerations of policy. The judiciary does not Legaspi then instituted an action asking the Court to compel the Civil Service
settle policy issues. The Court can only declare what the law is, and not what the Commission to provide the information.
law should be. Under our system of government, policy issues are within the
domain of the political branches of the government, and of the people Decision Overview
themselves as the repository of all State power. The concerned borrowers The Court began by noting that both the 1973 (Art. IV, Sec. 6) and 1987 (Art. III,
themselves may not succeed if they choose to invoke their right to privacy, Sec. 7) constitutions recognize the right of the people to information on matters
of public concern. Further, they specify that information shall be provided, ISSUE: Whether or not publication in the Official Gazatte is an indispensable
subject only to limitations provided by law. requirement for the effectivity of the PDs, LOIs, general orders, EOs, etc. where
the laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates.
While the Solicitor General interposed a procedural objection challenging the
requester’s standing in this petition, the Court ruled that, in this case, the people RULING: Yes. It is the people’s right to be informed on matters of public concern
are regarded as the “real party in interest” and the requester, as a citizen and corollarily access to official records, and to documents and papers
interested in the execution of the laws, did not need to show any legal or special pertaining to official acts, transactions,
interest in the result. [p. 2] Further, government agencies have no discretion to or decisions, shall be afforded the citizens subject to such limitation as may be
refuse disclosure of, or access to, information of public concern because the provided by law (Sec. 6 Art. IV, 1973 Constitution). Laws, to be valid and
Constitution guarantees access to information of public concern, a recognition enforceable, must be published in the OG or otherwise effectively promulgated.
of the essential nature of the free flow of ideas and information in a democracy. The fact that a PD or LOI states its date of effectivity does not preclude their
The government agency denying information access has the burden to show publication in the OG as they constitute important legislative acts. The
that the information is not of public concern, or, if it is of public concern, that publication of presidential issuances “of public nature” or “of general
the information has been exempted by law from the obligation of disclosure. applicability” is a requirement of due process. Before a person may be bound by
law, he must first be officially informed of its contents.
Here, the information was of public concern because it is the legitimate concern
of citizens to ensure that government positions requiring civil service eligibility Important Point: It illustrates how decrees and issuances issued by one man—
are occupied only by eligible persons, and the Civil Service Commission failed to Marcos—are in fact laws of general application and provide for penalties. The
cite any law limiting the requester’s right to know. Thus, the Court ordered the constitution afforded Marcos both executive and legislative powers. The
Civil Service Commission to provide the information. generality of law (Civil Code, Art. 14) will never work without constructive
notice. The ruling of this case provides the publication constitutes the necessary
This case expands expression because it upholds the individuals right to request constructive notice and is thus the cure for ignorance as an excuse. Ignorance
information from governmental agencies and places the burden of proof on the will not even mitigate the crime.
government to justify any refusals to provide access to information.
Right to Information (Access to Public Records)
TANADA VS. TUVERA, 136 SCRA 27 (1985) DOMINADOR C. BALDOZA, complainant, vs.
HON. JUDGE RODOLFO B. DIMAANO, respondent.
FACTS: Invoking the people’s right to be informed on matters of public concern,
a right recognized in Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 constitution, petitioners FACTS:
seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish, In a verified letter-complaint dated September 9, 1975, the Municipal
and/or cause the publication in the Official Gazette, of various presidential Secretary of Taal, Batangas, charges Municipal Judge Rodolfo B. Dimaano, of the
decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, same municipality, with abuse of authority in refusing to allow employees of the
letter of implementation and administrative orders. The respondents would Municipal Mayor to examine the criminal docket records of the Municipal Court
have this case dismissed on the ground that petitioners have no legal to secure data in connection with their contemplated report on the peace and
personality to bring this petition. Petitioners maintain that since the subject of order conditions of the said municipality.
the petition concerns a public right and its object is to compel public duty, they
need not show any specific interest. Respondents further contend that Respondent answered that there has never been an intention to refuse
publication in the OG is not a sine qua non requirement for the effectivity of access to official court records but that the same is always subject to reasonable
laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates. regulation as to who, when, where and how they may be inspected. He further
asserted that a court has the power to prevent an improper use or inspection of
its records and furnishing copies may be refuse when the motivation is not reservation made to that end and for purposes of cultivation under certain
serious and legitimate interest, out of whim or fancy or mere curiosity or to plans. The Manguianes are a Non-Christian tribe who were considered to be of
gratify private site or promote public scandal. “very low culture”.
One of the Manguianes, a certain Dabalos, escaped from the reservation but was
The case was thereupon referred to Judge Francisco Mat. Riodique for later caught and was placed in prison at Calapan, solely because he escaped
investigation and report. At the preliminary hearing on October 16, 1975, Taal from the reservation. An application for habeas corpus was made on behalf
Mayor Corazon A. Caniza filed a motion to dismiss the complaint but the motion by Rubi and other Manguianes of the province, alleging that by virtue of the
resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro creating the reservation, they had
was denied by the Investigating Judge. After formal investigation, he
been illegally deprived of their liberty. In this case, the validity of Section 2145
recommended the exoneration of respondent. of the Administrative Code, which provides:
With the prior approval of the Department Head, the provincial governor of any
ISSUE: Whether or not the rules and conditions imposed by Judge Dimaano on
province in which non-Christian inhabitants are found is authorized, when such a
the inspection of the docket books infringe upon the right of individuals to course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order, to direct such
information. inhabitants to take up their habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands to be
selected by him and approved by the provincial board.
RULING: No. As found by the Investigating Judge, the respondent allowed the
was challenged.
complainant to open and view the docket books of respondent certain
conditions and under his control and supervision. It has not been shown that ISSUE: Whether or not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code constitutes
undue delegation. Whether or not the Manguianes are being deprived of their
the rules and conditions imposed by the respondent were unreasonable. The
liberty.
access to public records predicated on the right of the people to acquire
information on matters of public concern. HELD:
I. No. By a vote of five to four, the Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality
The incorporation of this right in the Constitution is a recognition of the of this section of the Administrative Code. Under the doctrine of necessity, who
fundamental role of free exchange of information in a democracy. Information is else was in a better position to determine whether or not to execute the law but
needed to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of the the provincial governor. It is optional for the provincial governor to execute the
law as circumstances may arise. It is necessary to give discretion to the
times. As has been aptly observed: "Maintaining the flow of such information
provincial governor. The Legislature may make decisions of executive
depends on protection for both its acquisition and its dissemination since, if departments of subordinate official thereof, to whom it has committed the
either process is interrupted, the flow inevitably ceases.” However, restrictions execution of certain acts, final on questions of fact.
on access to certain records may be imposed by law. Thus, access restrictions
II. No. Among other things, the term “non-Christian” should not be given a literal
imposed to control civil insurrection have been permitted upon a showing of meaning or a religious signification, but that it was intended to relate to degrees
immediate and impending danger that renders ordinary means of control of civilization. The term “non-Christian” it was said, refers not to religious belief,
inadequate to maintain order. but in a way to geographical area, and more directly to natives of the Philippine
Islands of a low grade of civilization. In this case, the Manguianes were being
reconcentrated in the reservation to promote peace and to arrest their
RUBI VS PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO
seminomadic lifestyle. This will ultimately settle them down where they can
39 Phil. 660 – Political Law – Delegation of Powers – Liberty and due process adapt to the changing times.
Rubi and various other Manguianes (Mangyans) in the province of Mindoro The Supreme Court held that the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro
were ordered by the provincial governor of Mindoro to remove their residence was neither discriminatory nor class legislation, and stated among other things:
from their native habitat and to established themselves on a reservation in “. . . one cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered with
Tigbao, still in the province of Mindoro, and to remain there, or be punished by when the degree of civilization of the Manguianes is considered. They are
imprisonment if they escaped. Manguianes had been ordered to live in a restrained for their own good and the general good of the Philippines. Nor can
one say that due process of law has not been followed. To go back to our Discussions: A generally accepted principle of international law, should be
definition of due process of law and equal protection of the laws, there exists a observed by us in good faith. If a treaty would be in conflict with a statute then
law; the law seems to be reasonable; it is enforced according to the regular the statute must be upheld because it represented an exercise of the police
methods of procedure prescribed; and it applies alike to all of a class.”
power which, being inherent could not be bargained away or surrendered
ICHONG VS HERNANDEZ G.R. No. L-7995 May 31, 1957 through the medium of a treaty.

LAO H. ICHONG, in his own behalf and in behalf of other alien residents, Ruling/s: Yes, a law may supersede a treaty or a generally accepted principle. In
corporations and partnerships adversely affected. by Republic Act No. 1180, this case, the Supreme Court saw no conflict between the raised generally
petitioner, accepted principle and with RA 1180. The equal protection of the law clause
vs. “does not demand absolute equality amongst residents; it merely requires that
JAIME HERNANDEZ, Secretary of Finance, and MARCELINO SARMIENTO, City all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both
Treasurer of Manila, respondents. as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced”; and, that the equal
protection clause “is not infringed by legislation which applies only to those
Facts: Driven by aspirations for economic independence and national security, persons falling within a specified class, if it applies alike to all persons within
the Congress enacted Act No. 1180 entitled “An Act to Regulate the Retail such class, and reasonable grounds exist for making a distinction between those
Business.” The main provisions of the Act, among others, are: who fall within such class and those who do not.”

(1) Prohibition against persons, not citizens of the Philippines, and against For the sake of argument, even if it would be assumed that a treaty would be in
associations, among others, from engaging directly or indirectly in the retail conflict with a statute then the statute must be upheld because it represented an
trade; and exercise of the police power which, being inherent could not be bargained away
or surrendered through the medium of a treaty. Hence, Ichong can no longer
(2) Prohibition against the establishment or opening by aliens actually engaged assert his right to operate his market stalls in the Pasay city market.
in the retail business of additional stores or branches of retail business.

Lao H. Ichong, in his own behalf and on behalf of other alien residents,
corporations and partnerships adversely affected by the said Act, brought an
action to obtain a judicial declaration, and to enjoin the Secretary of Finance,
Jaime Hernandez, and all other persons acting under him, particularly city and
municipal treasurers, from enforcing its provisions. Petitioner attacked the
constitutionality of the Act, contending that:

It denies to alien residents the equal protection of the laws and deprives of their
liberty and property without due process of law.
The subject of the Act is not expressed or comprehended in the title thereof.
The Act violates international and treaty obligations of the Republic of the
Philippines.

Issue/s: Whether or not a law may invalidate or supersede treaties or generally


accepted principles.
W/N said law is in violation of the provisions of the Philippine Bill in depriving
citizens of their rights therein guaranteed

HELD:

Is the assailed municipal ordinance a violation of the Philippine Bill?

The municipal ordinance was enacted pursuant to the provisions of Act No.
1309, the specific purpose of which is to require each able-bodied male resident
of the municipality, between the ages of 18 and 55, as well as each householder
when so required by the president, to assist in the maintenance of peace and
good order in the community, by apprehending ladrones, etc., as well as by
giving information of the existence of such persons in the locality. The
amendment contains a punishment for those who may be called upon for such
service, and who refuse to render the same.

The question asked by the Supreme Court is whether there is anything in the
law, organic or otherwise, in force in the Philippine Islands, which prohibits the
central Government, or any governmental entity connected therewith, from
adopting or enacting rules and regulations for the maintenance of peace and
good government?

U.S. v. Pompeya G.R. No. L-10255, August 6, 1915 In answering this, the Supreme Court cited the tribal relations of the primitive
man, the feudal system, the days of the "hundreds" -- all of which support the
o police power of the state idea of an ancient obligation of the individual to assist in the protection of the
o "general welfare" clause peace and good order of his community.

FACTS: This case is regarding the complaint filed by the prosecuting attorney of The Supreme Court held that the power exercised under the provisions of Act
the Province of Iloilo, charging Silvestre Pompeya with violation of the No. 1309 falls within the police power of the state and that the state was fully
municipal ordinance of Iloilo for willfully, illegally, and criminally and without authorized and justified in conferring the same upon the municipalities of the
justifiable motive failing to render service on patrol duty, required under said Philippine Islands and that, therefore, the provisions of the said Act are
municipal ordinance. constitutional and not in violation nor in derogation of the rights of the persons
affected thereby.
Upon arraignment, Pompeya presented a demurrer, stating that the acts
charged in the complaint do not constitute a crime and that the municipal Is there a cause of action?
ordinance is unconstitutional for being repugnant to the Organic Act of the
Philippines, which guarantees the liberty of the citizens. The complain is unable to show (a) that the defendant was a male citizen of the
municipality; (b) that he was an able-bodied citizen; (c) that he was not under
The trial judge sustained said demurrer and ordered the dismissal of the 18 years of age nor over 55; nor (d) that conditions existed which justified the
complaint. president of the municipality in calling upon him for the services mentioned in
the law.
Hence, this appeal.
"For all of the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the lower court is hereby
ISSUE: W/N the facts stated in the complaint are sufficient to show a cause of affirmed, with costs. So ordered."
action under the said law
AGUSTIN VS. EDU [88 SCRA 195; G.R. No. L-49112; 2 Feb 1979] motion, concluding that Gomez lacked standing to challenge the search of the
Facts: President Marcos issued the Letter of Instruction No. 229 which states car. We affirm Gomez's conviction.
that all owners, users or drivers shall have at all times one pair of early warning
devise (EWD) in their cars acquire from any source depending on the owner’s The Honorable Elsijane T. Roy, United States District Judge for the Eastern
choice. The Letter of Instruction was assailed by petitioner Leovillo Agustin to District of Arkansas.
have violated the constitution guarantee of due process against Hon Edu, Land
Transportation Commissioner, Hon. Juan Ponce Enrile, Minister of national On August 18, 1992, an Arkansas State Trooper stopped a car driven by Gomez
Defense, Hon. Juinio, Minister of Public Works, Transportation and near Little Rock, Arkansas, for going 63 m.p.h. in a 55-m.p.h. zone. Gomez, who
Communication and Hon. Aquino, Minister of Public Highways. Because of such spoke little English, produced an Illinois driver's license and a vehicle
contentions, the Implementing Rules and Regulation was ordered to be registration listing a different name. An insurance document showed that
suspended for a period of 6 months. Petitioner alleges that EWD are not another individual was insured on the car. The officer gave Gomez a warning
necessary because vehicles already have hazard lights (blinking lights) that can ticket. Gomez appeared nervous as the officer issued the warning ticket and
be use as a warning device. Also petitioner contest that the letter of instruction Gomez's signature on the ticket did not match the one on the driver's license.
violates the delegation of police power because it is deemed harsh, oppressive The trooper ran a radio check, which revealed a criminal history of two prior
and unreasonable for the motorists and those dealers of EWD will become drug offenses. The officer asked Gomez for permission to search the car, and it is
instant millionaires because of such law. disputed whether Gomez voluntarily agreed to the search. Upon searching the
vehicle, the trooper discovered 39.3 pounds of cocaine concealed in a secret
Issue: Whether or not Petitioner’s contentions possess merit. panel in the car's back seat and arrested Gomez. Gomez then claimed he owned
neither the car nor the cocaine, and later said another individual had given him
Held: Petitioner’s contentions are without merit because the exercise of police permission to use the vehicle.
power may interfere with personal liberty or property to ensure and promote
the safety, health and prosperity of the State. Also, such letter of instruction is Gomez was charged with possession with intent to distribute more than five
intended to promote public safety and it is indeed a rare occurrence that such kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Before trial, Gomez
contention was alleged in a instruction with such noble purpose. Petitioner also moved to suppress the cocaine seized during the search of the car, alleging he
failed to present the factual foundation that is necessary to invalidate the said did not give free and voluntary consent to the search. The government argued
letter of instruction. In cases where there is absence in the factual foundation, it Gomez lacked standing to challenge the legality of the search because Gomez did
should be presumed that constitutionality shall prevail. Pres. Marcos on the not own or have permission to use the car. Magistrate Judge John F. Forster, Jr.
other hand possesses vital statistics that will justify the need for the filed a Report and Recommendation, ruling that Gomez did not freely and
implementation of this instruction. As signatory to the 1968 Vienna voluntarily consent to the search, but that he lacked standing to challenge the
Conventions on Road Signs and Signals, our country must abide with the search. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation that
standards given as stated in our Constitution that “the Philippines adopts the Gomez's motion to suppress be denied. Following a two-day trial, a jury
generally accepted principles of International Law as part of the law of the land. convicted Gomez. Gomez argues that the district court erred in denying his
In the case at bar, the Vienna Convention also requires the use of EWD. Vehicle motion to suppress.
owners are not obliged to buy an EDW. They can personally create a EWD
provided that it is in accordance to the specifications provided by law. Although factual determinations related to standing should be reviewed under a
Petitioner’s allegation against the manufacturers of EDW being millionaires is clearly erroneous standard, Nor-West Cable Communications Partnership v.
deemed to be an unfounded speculation. Wherefore, the petition is dismissed. City of St. Paul, 924 F.2d 741, 747 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct.
The restraining order regarding the implementation of the Reflector Law is 2853, 115 L.Ed.2d 1021 (1991), we review a district court's ultimate
lifted making the said law immediately executory. determination of a denial of a motion to suppress de novo. United States v.
Riedesel, 987 F.2d 1383, 1387 (8th Cir. 1993).
US v GOMEZ JESUS
JOHN R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge. Because Fourth Amendment rights are personal and may not be asserted
Victor Manuel Gomez appeals from his conviction for possession of cocaine with vicariously, we must first determine whether Gomez had a legitimate
the intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1988). Gomez expectation of privacy in the area searched or the item seized. Rakas v. Illinois,
argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress cocaine 439 U.S. 128, 138-44, 99 S.Ct. 421, 427-430, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978); United
seized during a search of a car he was driving. The district court denied the States v. Morales, 737 F.2d 761, 763 (8th Cir. 1984). I
f a defendant fails to prove a sufficiently close connection to the relevant places secret compartments in the car contained cocaine. The government contended
or objects searched he has no standing to claim that they were searched or throughout the pendency of the proceedings that Gomez smuggled cocaine in a
seized illegally. United States v. Sanchez, 943 F.2d 110, 113 (1st Cir. 1991). T car belonging to another person. We find nothing in the record to support a
he defendant moving to suppress has the burden of proving a reasonable conclusion that the government waived its challenge to Gomez's standing.
expectation of privacy in the area searched. Rakas, 439 U.S. at 130-31 n. 1, 99
S.Ct. at 423 n. 1; United States v. Kiser, 948 F.2d 418, 423 (8th Cir. 1991). F Accordingly, we affirm Gomez's conviction.
actors relevant to the determination of standing include: ownership, possession
and/or control of the area searched or item seized; historical use of the Ermita Malate v City of Manila 20 SCRA 849 (1967)
property or item; ability to regulate access; the totality of the circumstances J. Fernando
surrounding the search; the existence or nonexistence of a subjective
anticipation of privacy; and the objective reasonableness of the expectation of Facts: Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, and one of its
privacy considering the specific facts of the case. Sanchez, 943 F.2d at 113. members Hotel del Mar Inc. petitioned for the prohibition of Ordinance 4670 on
June 14, 1963 to be applicable in the city of Manila.
This case is very similar to Sanchez, in which the First Circuit ruled that the
defendant did not have a sufficient expectation of privacy in a vehicle he was They claimed that the ordinance was beyond the powers of the Manila City
driving and therefore lacked standing to challenge the search of the car. Id. at Board to regulate due to the fact that hotels were not part of its regulatory
114. Sanchez "was driving alone on a long trip at a great distance from the powers. They also asserted that Section 1 of the challenged ordinance was
vehicle's owner," had only casual possession of the car, and no direct authority unconstitutional and void for being unreasonable and violative of due process
from the owner to use it. Id. at 113. The court found the defendant's lack of insofar because it would impose P6,000.00 license fee per annum for first class
authority from the owner of the car and his denial of an interest in the drugs motels and P4,500.00 for second class motels; there was also the requirement
contained within the car crucial to its determination that defendant lacked that the guests would fill up a form specifying their personal information.
standing. Id. at 114.
There was also a provision that the premises and facilities of such hotels, motels
and lodging houses would be open for inspection from city authorites. They
Likewise, Gomez has failed to show he had a reasonable expectation of privacy
claimed this to be violative of due process for being vague.
in the car. He testified he did not own the car, and the owner did not give him
permission to use it. Indeed, he testified he did not even know the owner of the The law also classified motels into two classes and required the maintenance of
vehicle, and some unidentified third party told him the owner had given certain minimum facilities in first class motels such as a telephone in each room,
permission for its use. Similar to Sanchez, Gomez's alleged authorization to use a dining room or, restaurant and laundry. The petitioners also invoked the lack
the car, combined with his denial of an interest in the cocaine found in the car, of due process on this for being arbitrary.
do not amount to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car. Therefore, he
has no standing to challenge the legality of the search. It was also unlawful for the owner to lease any room or portion thereof more
than twice every 24 hours.
Gomez's assertion that the government may not contest his standing because it
adopted contradictory positions with regard to his interest in the cocaine is There was also a prohibition for persons below 18 in the hotel.
unavailing. Gomez urges us to apply Morales, in which a panel of this court
rejected the government's challenge to a defendant's standing despite the The challenged ordinance also caused the automatic cancellation of the license
defendant's failure to prove he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in a motel of the hotels that violated the ordinance.
room. 737 F.2d at 763. Morales concluded that the government took
inconsistent positions at trial and on appeal concerning the defendant's The lower court declared the ordinance unconstitutional.
disclaimer of knowledge of the motel room key. Id. Gomez's case, however, is
distinguishable from Morales. First, the government raised the standing issue in Hence, this appeal by the city of Manila.
a timely manner when Gomez moved to sup press the evidence before trial.
Issue: Whether Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila is violative of the due
Second, the government did not change its position between the suppression
process clause?
hearing and trial. Gomez, not the government, adopted inconsistent positions.
When Gomez was first stopped by the state trooper, he denied any interest in Held: No. Judgment reversed.
the cocaine, but later in an effort to establish standing, he testified he knew
Ratio: "The presumption is towards the validity of a law.” However, the municipal ordinances must not be unreasonable, oppressive, or tyrannical,
Judiciary should not lightly set aside legislative action when there is not a clear courts have, as a general rule, declined to interfere with such discretion. Eg. Sale
invasion of personal or property rights under the guise of police regulation. of liquors.

O'Gorman & Young v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co- Case was in the scope of Lutz v. Araneta- Taxation may be made to supplement the state’s police power.
police power. As underlying questions of fact may condition the
constitutionality of legislation of this character, the resumption of In one case- “much discretion is given to municipal corporations in determining
constitutionality must prevail in the absence of some factual foundation of the amount," here the license fee of the operator of a massage clinic, even if it
record for overthrowing the statute." No such factual foundation being laid in were viewed purely as a police power measure.
the present case, the lower court deciding the matter on the pleadings and the
stipulation of facts, the presumption of validity must prevail and the judgment On the impairment of freedom to contract by limiting duration of use to twice
against the ordinance set aside.” every 24 hours- It was not violative of due process. 'Liberty' as understood in
democracies, is not license; it is 'liberty regulated by law.' Implied in the term is
There is no question but that the challenged ordinance was precisely enacted to restraint by law for the good of the individual and for the greater good of the
minimize certain practices hurtful to public morals, particularly fornication and peace and order of society and the general well-being.
prostitution. Moreover, the increase in the licensed fees was intended to
discourage "establishments of the kind from operating for purpose other than Laurel- The citizen should achieve the required balance of liberty and authority
legal" and at the same time, to increase "the income of the city government." in his mind through education and personal discipline, so that there may be
established the resultant equilibrium, which means peace and order and
Police power is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, happiness for all.
morals, peace, good order, safety and general welfare of the people. In view of
the requirements of due process, equal protection and other applicable The freedom to contract no longer "retains its virtuality as a living principle,
constitutional guaranties, however, the power must not be unreasonable or unlike in the sole case of People v Pomar. The policy of laissez faire has to some
violative of due process. extent given way to the assumption by the government of the right of
intervention even in contractual relations affected with public interest.
There is no controlling and precise definition of due process. It has a standard to
which the governmental action should conform in order that deprivation of life, What may be stressed sufficiently is that if the liberty involved were freedom of
liberty or property, in each appropriate case, be valid. What then is the standard the mind or the person, the standard for the validity of governmental acts is
of due process which must exist both as a procedural and a substantive much more rigorous and exacting, but where the liberty curtailed affects at the
requisite to free the challenged ordinance from legal infirmity? It is most rights of property, the permissible scope of regulatory measure is wider.
responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice.
On the law being vague on the issue of personal information, the maintenance of
Negatively put, arbitrariness is ruled out and unfairness avoided.
establishments, and the “full rate of payment”- Holmes- “We agree to all the
Due process is not a narrow or "technical conception with fixed content generalities about not supplying criminal laws with what they omit but there is
unrelated to time, place and circumstances," decisions based on such a clause no canon against using common sense in construing laws as saying what they
requiring a "close and perceptive inquiry into fundamental principles of our obviously mean."
society." Questions of due process are not to be treated narrowly or pedantically
BUCK V. BELL
in slavery to form or phrase.
Facts of the case
Nothing in the petition is sufficient to prove the ordinance’s nullity for an
Carrie Buck was a feeble minded woman who was committed to a state mental
alleged failure to meet the due process requirement.
institution. Her condition had been present in her family for the last three
Cu Unjieng case: Licenses for non-useful occupations are also incidental to the generations. A Virginia law allowed for the sexual sterilization of inmates of
police power and the right to exact a fee may be implied from the power to institutions to promote the "health of the patient and the welfare of society."
license and regulate, but in fixing amount of the license fees the municipal Before the procedure could be performed, however, a hearing was required to
corporations are allowed a much wider discretion in this class of cases than in determine whether or not the operation was a wise thing to do.
the former, and aside from applying the well-known legal principle that
Question
Did the Virginia statute which authorized sterilization deny Buck the right to ISSUE:
due process of the law and the equal protection of the laws as protected by the Whether or not R.A. No. 342, which declared a moratorium on certain pre-war
Fourteenth Amendment? obligations, is unconstitutional for violation of the Constitutional provision
prohibiting the impairment of the obligation of contracts.
Conclusion
The Court found that the statute did not violate the Constitution. Justice Holmes HELD: Yes. R.A. No. 342 is unconstitutional.
made clear that Buck's challenge was not upon the medical procedure involved
but on the process of the substantive law. Since sterilization could not occur Statutes declaring a moratorium on obligations are generally constitutional
until a proper hearing had occurred (at which the patient and a guardian could Statutes declaring a moratorium on obligations are not new: “For some 1,400
be present) and after the Circuit Court of the County and the Supreme Court of years western civilization has made use of extraordinary devices for saving the
Appeals had reviewed the case, if so requested by the patient. Only after credit structure, devices generally known as moratoria. The moratorium is
"months of observation" could the operation take place. That was enough to postponement of fulfillment of obligations decreed by the state through the
satisfy the Court that there was no Constitutional violation. Citing the best medium of the courts or the legislature. Its essence is the application of the
interests of the state, Justice Holmes affirmed the value of a law like Virginia's in sovereign power.”
order to prevent the nation from "being swamped with incompetence . . . Three
generations of imbeciles are enough." Such laws were often passed during or after times of financial distress such as
wars and disasters. Similar laws were passed in some US states after the civil
RUTTER vs. ESTEBAN war and they have been declared constitutional. Some laws however, were
G.R. No. L-3708; May 18, 1953; 93 Phil. 68 declared unconstitutional where the period of moratorium prescribed is
Ponente: Bautista Angelo indefinite or unreasonable.

Doctrine: Inherent powers of the State; Police Power; The national economy The argument that moratorium laws impair the obligation of contracts does not
hold water. It is justified as a valid exercise of the state of it's police power.
FACTS: In August 20, 1941, Rutter sold to Esteban 2 parcels of land in Manila.
Esteban paid 3/4ths of the purchase price and they constituted a mortgage over In the US case, Home Building and Loan Association vs. Blaisdell, it was held
one of the parcels to secure the payment of the balance. that:

However, the war broke out and somehow, Esteban was not able to pay the The economic interests of the State may justify the exercise of its continuing and
balance of the purchase price on the due date and so, on August 2, 1949, Rutter dominant protective power notwithstanding interference with contracts. . . .
instituted an action to recover the balance with the CFI.
xxx
Esteban admitted the averments of the complaint but as a defense, he claimed
that his obligation was a pre-war obligation covered by the moratorium Similarly, where the protective power of the State is exercised in a manner
embodied in R.A. No. 342. otherwise appropriate in the regulation of a business it is no objection that the
performance of existing contracts may be frustrated by the prohibition of
Section 2 of Republic Act No. 342 provides that “all debts and other monetary injurious practices. . . .
obligations contracted before December 8, 1941, any provision in the contract
creating the same or any subsequent aggreement affecting such obligation to . . . . The question is not whether the legislative action affects contracts
the contrary notwithstanding, shall not due and demandable for a period of incidentally, or directly or indirectly, but whether the legislation is addressed to
eight (8) years from and after settlement of the war damage claim of the debtor a legitimate end and the measures taken are reasonable and appropriate to that
by the Philippine War Damage Commission.” end.

The CFI ruled in favor of the debtor Esteban. This brings us to the sole issue Thus the “true test” of constitutionality of a moratorium statute “lies in the
raised by petitioner on appeal determination of the period of a suspension of the remedy. It is required that
such suspension be definite and reasonable, otherwise it would be violative of
the constitution.” Facts: The Supreme court Said sections 30 and 33 of the Act prohibit and
penalize the slaughtering or causing to be slaughtered for human consumption
R.A. No. 342 is unconstitutional for being unreasonable of large cattle at any place without the permit provided for in section 30
The moratorium law, enacted in 1948, came on the heels of executive orders Where the language of a statute is fairly susceptible of two or more
likewise declaring moratoriums. With its 8 year moratorium period, it is clearly constructions, that construction should be adopted which will most tend to give
unreasonable for creditors who have to “observe a vigil of 12 years” to collect effect to the manifest intent of the lawmaker and promote the object for which
on debts which have become demandable as early as 1941. And the injustice is the statute was enacted, and a construction should be rejected which would
more patent when, under the law, the debtor is not even required to pay tend to render abortive other provisions of the statute and to defeat the object
interest during the operation of the relief. which the legislator sought to attain by its enactment

The court also noted that the reconstruction is paying off and that the The Supreme Court also said that if they will follow the contention of Toribio it
Philippines is headed to better times. Hence the Supreme Court declared R.A. will defeat the purpose of the law.
No. 342 unreasonable and oppressive and hence, null and void and without
effect. The police power rests upon necessity and the right of self-protection and if
ever the invasion of private property by police regulation can be justified, The
Disposition: Esteban was ordered to pay the balance with interest at the rate of Supreme Court think that the reasonable restriction placed upon the use of
7% per annum with 12% attorneys fees. carabaos by the provision of the law under discussion must be held to be
authorized as a reasonable and proper exercise of that power.
US vs TURIBIO
G.R. No. L-5060 January 26, 1910 THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. The Supreme Court cited events that happen in the Philippines like an epidemic
LUIS TORIBIO, defendant-appellant. that wiped 70-100% of the population of carabaos.. The Supreme Court also
said that these animals are vested with public interest for they are fundamental
Facts: Respondent Toribio is an owner of carabao, residing in the town of use for the production of crops. These reasons satisfy the requesites of a valid
Carmen in the province of Bohol. The trial court of Bohol found that the exercise of police power
respondent slaughtered or caused to be slaughtered a carabao without a permit
from the municipal treasurer of the municipality wherein it was slaughtered, in The Supreme court finally said that article 1147 is not an exercise of the
violation of Sections 30 and 33 of Act No. 1147, an Act regulating the inherent power of eminent domain. The said law does not constitute the taking
registration, branding, and slaughter of Large Cattle. The act prohibits the of caraboes for public purpose; it just serve as a mere regulation for the
slaughter of large cattle fit for agricultural work or other draft purposes for consumption of these private properties for the protection of general welfare
human consumption. and public interest.

The respondent counters by stating that what the Act is (1) prohibiting is the UNITED STATES V. CAUSBY Citation. 22 Ill.328 U.S. 256, 66 S. Ct. 1062, 90 L.
slaughter of large cattle in the municipal slaughter house without a permit given Ed. 1206 (1946)
by the municipal treasurer. Furthermore, he contends that the municipality of
Carmen has no slaughter house and that he slaughtered his carabao in his Brief Fact Summary. Respondents claim that their property was taken, within
dwelling, (2) the act constitutes a taking of property for public use in the the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, by the regular army and navy aircraft
exercise of the right of eminent domain without providing for the compensation flights over their house and chicken farm.
of owners, and it is an undue and unauthorized exercise of police power of the
state for it deprives them of the enjoyment of their private property. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The airspace is a public highway, but if the landowner
is to have the full enjoyment of his land, he must have exclusive control over the
Issue: Whether or not Act. No. 1147, regulating the registration, branding and immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere.
slaughter of large cattle, is an undue and unauthorized exercise of police power.

Held: It is a valid exercise of police power of the state.


Facts. Respondents own 2.8 acres near an airport outside of Greensboro, North
Carolina. Respondents’ property contained a house and a chicken farm. The end
of one of the runways of the airport was 2,220 feet from Respondents’ property, Discussion. The national emergency, World War II, meant that the airport,
and the glide path passed over the property at 83 feet, which is 67 feet above which was not previously used by large planes, would be the home to large
the house, 63 feet above the barn, and 18 feet above the highest tree. The use by bombers. The use of the airspace above Respondents’ home and farm was not a
problem previously, because the flights were sporadic and not nearly as loud as
the United States of this airport is pursuant to a lease beginning June 1, 1942,
the bombers.
and ending June 30, 1942, with provisions for renewal until June 30, 1967, or six
months after the end of the national emergency, whichever is earlier. The
United States’ four motored bombers make loud noises when flying above the
property, and have very bright lights. Respondents’ chicken farm production
had to stop, because 150 chickens were killed by flying into walls from fright. In
the Court of Claims, it was found that the United States had taken an easement
over the property on June 1, 1942, and that the val
ue of the property depreciation as the result of the easement was $2,000.00. The
United States petitioned for certiorari, which was granted.

Issue. Has the Respondents’ property been taken within the meaning of the
Fifth Amendment?

Held. Yes. But the case is remanded for a determination of the value of the
easement and whether the easement was permanent or temporary.
The court noted the common law doctrine of ownership of land extending to the
sky above the land. However, the court notes that an act of Congress had given
the United States exclusive national sovereignty over the air space. The court
noted that common sense made the common law doctrine inapplicable.
However, the court found that the common law doctrine did not control the
present case. The United States had conceded in oral argument that if flights
over the Respondents’ property rendered it uninhabitable then there would be
a taking compensable under the Fifth Amendment. The measure of the value of
the property taken is the owner’s loss, not the taker’s gain.
The airspace is a public highway. But it is obvious that if the landowner is to
have the full enjoyment of his land, he must have exclusive control of the
immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. If this were not true then
landowners could not build buildings, plant trees or run fences.
The airspace, apart from the immediate reaches above the land, is part of the
public domain. The court does not set the precise limits of the line of
demarcation. Flights over private land are not a taking, unless, like here, they
are so low and frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the
enjoyment of the land. The Court of Claims must, upon remand, determine the
value of the easement and whether it is a temporary or permanent easement.

Dissent. The dissent would reverse the decision of the Court of Claims and hold
that there has been no taking within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. This
is because of the modern nature of the airplane, and the desire to avoid
confusion.