You are on page 1of 10

1) Hotel and motel operators in Manila sought to regulation. ​(Republic v.

Manila Electric Company,


declare Ordinance 4670 as unconstitutional for being G.R. No. 141314, Nov. 15, 2002)
unreasonable, thus violative of the due process clause. NOTE: Mall owners and operators cannot be validly
The Ordinance requires the clients of hotels, motels compelled to provide free parking to their customers
and lodging house to fill out a prescribed form in a because requiring them to provide free parking space to
lobby, open to public view and in the presence of the their customers is beyond the scope of police powers. It
owner, manager or duly authorized representative of unreasonably restricts the right to use property for
such hotel, motel or lodging house. The same law business purposes and amounts to confiscation of
provides that the premises and facilities of such hotels, property. ​(OSG v. Ayala Land, Inc., 600 SCRA 617)
motels and lodging houses would be open for (2014 Bar)
inspection either by the City Mayor, or the Chief of
Police, or their duly authorized representatives. It 3) Can MMDA exercise police power?
increased their annual license fees as well. Is the NO. The MMDA cannot exercise police powers since its
ordinance constitutional? powers are limited to the formulation, coordination,
YES. The mantle of protection associated with the due regulation, implementation, preparation, management,
process guaranty does not cover the hotel and motel monitoring, setting of policies, installing a system, and
operators. This particular manifestation of a police power administration. Nothing in RA No. 7924 granted the
measure being specifically aimed to safeguard public MMDA police power, let alone legislative power
morals is immune from such imputation of nullity resting (MMDA v. Trackworks, G.R. No. 179554, Dec. 16,
purely on conjecture and unsupported by anything of 2009).
substance. To hold otherwise would be to unduly restrict
and narrow the scope of police power which has been 4) The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor-
properly characterized as the most essential, insistent and General, instituted a complaint for expropriation of a
the least limitable of powers,extending as it does "to all piece of land in Taguig, alleging that the National
the great public needs." There is no question that the Historical Institute declared said land as a national
challenged ordinance was precisely enacted to minimize historical landmark, because it was the site of the birth
certain practices hurtful to public morals. The challenged of Felix Manalo, the founder of Iglesia ni Cristo. The
ordinance then proposes to check the clandestine Republic filed an action to expropriate the land.
harboring of transients and guests of these establishments Petitioners argued that the expropriation was not for
by requiring these transients and guests to fill up a a public purpose. Is this correct?
registration form, prepared for the purpose, in a lobby YES. Public use should not be restricted to the traditional
open to public view at all times, and by introducing uses. It has been held that places invested with unusual
several other amendatory provisions calculated to shatter historical interest is a public use for which the power of
the privacy that characterizes the registration of transients eminent domain may be authorized. The purpose in
and guests. Moreover, the increase in the licensed fees setting up the marker is essentially to recognize the
was intended to discourage "establishments of the kind distinctive contribution of the late Felix Manalo to the
from operating for purpose other than legal" and at the culture of the Philippines, rather than to commemorate his
same time, to increase "the income of the city founding and leadership of the Iglesia ni Cristo. The
government." ​(Ermita-Malate Hotel v. City Mayor of practical reality that greater benefit may be derived by
Manila, G.R. No. L-24693, July 31, 1967) members of the Iglesia ni Cristo than by most others could
well be true but such a peculiar advantage still remains to
2) Are the rates to be charged by utilities like be merely incidental and secondary in nature. Indeed, that
MERALCO subject to State regulation? only a few would actually benefit from the expropriation
YES. The regulation of rates to be charged by public of property does not necessarily diminish the essence and
utilities is founded upon the police powers of the State character of public use. ​(Manosca v. CA, supra.)
and statutes prescribing rules for the control and
regulation of public utilities are a valid exercise thereof. 5) Several parcels of lands located in Lahug, Cebu City
When private property is used for a public purpose and is were the subject of expropriation proceedings filed by
affected with public interest, it ceases to be juris privati the Government for the expansion and improvement
only and becomes subject to regulation. The regulation is of the Lahug Airport. The RTC
to promote the common good. As long as use of the rendered judgment in favor of the Government and
property is continued, the same is subject to public ordered the latter to pay the landowners the fair
market value of the land. The landowners received the due process of law, and the judgment would violate the
payment. property owner’s right to justice, fairness, and
The other dissatisfied landowners appealed. Pending equity.​(MIAA and Air Transportation Office v.
appeal, the Air Transportation Office (ATO), Lozada, G.R. No. 176625, Feb. 25, 2010)
proposed a compromise settlement whereby the NOTE: To continue with the expropriation proceedings
owners of the lots affected by the expropriation despite the definite cessation of the public purpose of the
proceedings would either not appeal or withdraw their project would result in the rendition of an invalid
respective appeals in consideration of a commitment judgment in favor of the expropriator due to the absence
that the expropriated lots would be resold at the price of the essential element of public use. ​(Republic v. Heirs
they were expropriated in the event that the ATO of Borbon, G.R. No. 165354, Jan. 12, 2015)
would abandon the Lahug Airport, pursuant to an
established policy involving similar cases. Because of 6) The Philippine Press Institute, Inc. ("PPI") assails
this promise, the landowners did not pursue their the validity of Resolution No. 2772 issued by Comelec
appeal. Thereafter, the lot was transferred and wherein the latter shall procure free print space in at
registered in the name of the Government. The least one newspaper of general circulation, any
projected improvement and expansion plan of the old magazine or periodical in every province or city for
Lahug Airport, however, was not pursued. From the use as "Comelec Space" from March 6, 1995 in the
date of the institution of the expropriation proceedings case of candidates. Is the resolution valid?
up to the present, the public purpose of the said NO. The taking of private property for public use is
expropriation (expansion of the airport) was never authorized by the Constitution, but not without payment
actually initiated, realized, or implemented. Thus, the of just compensation (Article III, Section 9). And
landowners initiated a complaint for the recovery of apparently the necessity of paying compensation for
possession and reconveyance of ownership of the lands "Comelec space" is precisely what is sought to be avoided
based on the compromised agreement they entered by the Commission. There is nothing at all to prevent
into with the ATO. On the other hand, the newspaper and magazine publishers from voluntarily
Government anchor their claim to the controverted giving free print space to Comelec for the purposes
property on the supposition that the decision in the contemplated in Resolution No. 2772. Section 2 of
pertinent expropriation proceedings did not provide Resolution No. 2772 does not, however, provide a
for the condition that should the intended use of the constitutional basis for compelling publishers, against
land for the expansion of the Lahug Airport be their will to provide free print space for Comelec
aborted or abandoned, the property would revert to purposes. Section 2 does not constitute a valid exercise of
respondents, being its former owners. Do the former the power of eminent domain. ​(Philippine Press Institute
owners have the right to redeem the property? v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119694, May 22, 1995)
YES. It is well settled that the taking of private property
by the Government’s power of eminent domain is subject 7) Sec. 92 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that
to two mandatory requirements: (1) that it is for a the Comelec shall procure radio and television time to
particular public purpose; and (2) that just compensation be known as “Comelec Time” which shall be allocated
be paid to the property owner. These requirements partake equally and impartially among the candidates within
of the nature of implied conditions that should be the area of coverage of all radio and television
complied with to enable the condemnor to keep the stations.Thus, the franchise of all radio broadcasting
property expropriated. More particularly, with respect to and television stations are hereby amended so as to
the element of public use, the expropriator should commit provide radio or television time, free of charge, during
to use the property pursuant to the purpose stated in the the period of the campaign. Is Sec. 92 of BP 881 valid?
petition for expropriation filed, failing which, it should YES. All broadcasting, whether by radio or by television
file another petition for the new purpose. If not, it is then stations, is licensed by the government. Airwave
incumbent upon the expropriator to return the said frequencies have to be allocated as there are more
property to its private owner, if the latter desires to individuals who want to broadcast than there are
reacquire the same. Otherwise, the judgment of frequencies to assign. A franchise is thus a privilege
expropriation suffers an intrinsic flaw, as it would lack subject, among other things, to amendment by Congress
one indispensable element for the proper exercise of the in accordance with the constitutional provision that “any
power of eminent domain, namely, the particular public such franchise or right granted shall be subject to
purpose for which the property will be devoted. amendment, alteration or repeal by the Congress when the
Accordingly, the private property owner would be denied common good so requires. Radio and television
broadcasting companies, which are given franchises, do 10) Causby sued the United States for trespassing on
not own the airwaves and frequencies through which they his land, complaining specifically about how low-
transmit broadcast signals and images. They are merely flying military planes caused his chickens to jump up
given the temporary privilege of using them. Since a against the side of the chicken house and the walls and
franchise is a mere privilege, the exercise of the privilege burst themselves open and die. Are they entitled to
may reasonably be burdened with the performance by the compensation by reason of taking clause?
grantee of some form of public service. Yes, there is taking by reason of the frequency and
(Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the altitude of the flights. Flights of aircraft over private land
Philippines v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 132922, April 21, which are so low and frequent as to be a direct and
1998) immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the
land are as much an appropriation of the use of the land as
8) An ordinance of Quezon City requires memorial a more conventional entry upon it. If the flights over
park operators to set aside at least 6% of their Causby's property rendered it inhabitable, there would be
cemetery for charity burial of deceased persons who a taking compensable under the Fifth Amendment. It is
are paupers and residents of Quezon City. The same the owner's loss, not the taker's gain, which is the measure
ordinance also imposes fine or imprisonment and of the value of the property taken. Moreover, Causby
revocation of permit to operate in case of violation. Is could not use his land for any purpose. ​(US v. Causby
this a valid exercise of police power? 328 U.S 256, 1946)
No. It constituted taking of property without just
compensation. The power to regulate does not include the 11) Can taxes be subject to off-setting or
power to prohibit. The power to regulate does not include compensation?
the power to confiscate. The ordinance in question not NO. Taxes cannot be subject to compensation for the
only confiscates but also prohibits the operation of a simple reason that the government and the taxpayer are
memorial park cemetery, because under Sec. 13 of said not creditors and debtors of each other. There is a material
ordinance, 'Violation of the provision thereof is distinction between a tax and debt. Debts are due to the
punishable with a fine and/or imprisonment and that upon Government in its corporate capacity, while taxes are due
conviction thereof the permit to operate and maintain a to the Government in its sovereign capacity. It must be
private cemetery shall be revoked or cancelled’. The noted that a distinguishing feature of tax is that it is
confiscatory clause and the penal provision in effect deter compulsory rather than a matter of bargain. Hence, a tax
one from operating a memorial park cemetery. Moreover, does not depend upon the consent of the taxpayer. ​(Philex
instead of building or maintaining a public cemetery for Mining Corp. v. CIR, 294 SCRA 687, Aug. 28, 1998)
this purpose, the city passes the burden to private
cemeteries. ​(City Government of Quezon City v. Ericta, 12) The City of Manila enacted Ordinance 7783, which
G.R. No. L-34915, June 24, 1983) prohibited the establishment or operation of business
“providing certain forms of amusement,
9) NPC negotiated with Maria for an easement of right entertainment, services and facilities where women are
of way over her property. NPC contends that they used as tools in entertainment and which tend to
shall only pay easement fee, not just compensation. Is disturb the community, among the inhabitants and
a right of way easement subject to expropriation? adversely affect the social and moral welfare of
YES. There can be expropriation in the right of way community”. Owners and operators concerned were
easement. Expropriation is not limited to the acquisition given three months to wind up their operations or to
of real property with a corresponding transfer of title or transfer to any place outside the Ermita-Malate area,
possession – the right of way easement resulting in a or convert said business to other kinds of business
restriction of limitation on property right over the land which are allowed. Does the ordinance violate the
traversed by transmission lines also falls within the ambit due process clause?
of the term expropriation ​(NPC v. Maria Mendoza San YES. These lawful establishments may only be regulated.
Pedro, G.R. No. 170945 Sept. 26, 2006). They cannot be prohibited from carrying on their
business. This is a sweeping exercise of police power,
which amounts to interference into personal and private
rights which the court will not countenance. There is a
clear invasion of personal or property rights, personal in
the case of those individuals desiring of owning, operating
and patronizing those motels and property in terms of
investments made and the salaries to be paid to those who law. Casino gambling is, however, authorized under PD 1869. This
decree has the status of a statute that cannot be annulled or
are employed therein. If the City of Manila desired to put
amended by a mere ordinance. PAGCOR can set up casinos with or
an end to prostitution, fornication, and other social ills, it
without the consent of the host local government. ​(Magtajas v.
can instead impose reasonable regulations such as daily Pryce Properties and PAGCOR, G.R. No. 111097, July 20, 1994)
inspections of the establishments for any violation of the
conditions of their licenses or permits, it may exercise its 15) The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Davao City
authority to suspend or revoke their licenses for these enacted an ordinance imposing a ban against aerial
violations; and it may even impose increased license spraying as an agricultural practice by all agricultural
fees.​(City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr. GR. No. 118127, entities within Davao City. Pursuant to the ordinance,
April 12, 2005). the ban against aerial spraying would be strictly
enforced three months thereafter. The Pilipino Banana
13) The Quezon City government passed an ordinance Growers and Exporters Association, Inc. (PBGEA)
imposing garbage collection fees. The fee imposed for a filed a petition in the RTC to challenge the
condominium unit occupant is higher than that of a constitutionality of the ordinance, alleging that the
residential lot owner. Does this violate the equal ordinance exemplified the unreasonable exercise of
protection clause? police power and violated the equal protection clause.
YES. For the purpose of garbage collection, there is, in The RTC declared that the ordinance is valid and
fact, no substantial distinction between an occupant of a constitutional saying that the City of Davao had
lot, on one hand, and an occupant of a unit in a validly exercised police power under the General
condominium, socialized housing project or apartment, on Welfare Clause of the Local Government Code and
the other hand. Most likely, garbage output produced by that the ordinance was consistent with the Equal
these types of occupants is uniform and does not vary to a Protection Clause. On appeal, however, the CA,
large degree; thus, a similar schedule of fee is both just reversed the judgment of the RTC. Is the ordinance
and equitable. The rates being charged by the ordinance valid?
are unjust and inequitable: a resident of a 200 sq. m. unit NO. Requiring the respondents and other affected
in a condominium or socialized housing project has to pay individuals to comply with the consequences of the ban
twice the amount than a resident of a lot similar in size; within the three-month period under pain of penalty like
unlike unit occupants, all occupants of a lot with an area fine, imprisonment and even cancellation of business
of 200 sq. m. and less have to pay a fixed rate of permits would definitely be oppressive as to constitute
Php100.00; and the same amount of garbage fee is abuse of police power. The ordinance violated the equal
imposed regardless of whether the resident is from a protection clause. The imposition of the ban is too broad
condominium or from a socialized housing project. because the ordinance applies irrespective of the
(Ferrer v. Bautista, G.R. No. 210551, June 30, 2015) substance to be aerially applied and irrespective of the
NOTE: The legislature may not validly classify the agricultural activity to be conducted. Such imposition
citizens of the State on the basis of their origin, race, or becomes unreasonable inasmuch as it patently bears no
parentage. But the difference in status between citizens relation to the purported inconvenience, discomfort,
and aliens constitutes a basis for reasonable classification health risk and environmental danger which the ordinance
in the exercise of police power. ​(Demore v. Kim, 538 seeks to address. The burden will now become more
U.S. 510, 2003) onerous to various entities, including those with no
connection whatsoever to the intended purpose of the
14) ​The Sanggunian of Cagayan De Oro enacted Ordinance No. ordinance.​(Mosqueda vs. Pilipino Banana Growers &
3353 prohibiting the issuance of business permits and
Exporters Assoc., G.R. No. 189185 & 189305, August
cancelling existing business permits for the operation of
casinos; and Ordinance No. 3375-93, prohibiting the operation
16, 2016)
of a casino. Z assailed the validity of the ordinances on the
ground that both violated P.D. 1869 which permits the 16) Acebedo Optical Company applied with the Office
operation of casinos, centralized and regulated by PAGCOR. of the City Mayor of Iligan for a business permit. The
The Sanggunian, however, contended that pursuant to the
City Mayor issued such permit subject to special
LGC, they have the police power to prohibit the operations of
conditions that the company cannot put up an optical
casinos for the general welfare. Was there a valid exercise of
police power? clinic but only a commercial store; it cannot examine
NO. PD 1869 creating the PAGCOR expressly authorized it to patients and prescribe glasses; and it cannot sell
centralize and regulate all games of chance including casinos. This eyeglasses without a prescription from an independent
has not been amended by the LGC which empowers LGUs to optometrist. Samahan ng Optometrist ng Pilipinas
prevent or suppress only those forms of gambling prohibited by
lodged a complaint against Acebedo for violating the includes their right to decide how best to protect their
conditions which resulted in the revocation of its property. ​(Fernando v. St. Scholastica's College, G.R.
permit. Did the City Mayor have the authority to No. 161107, March 12, 2013)
impose special conditions in the grant of the business
permit? 18) Mayor Lim signed into law, City Ordinance 7774,
NO. Police power is essentially regulatory in nature and which prohibits short time admission in hotels, motels,
the power to issue license or grant business permits, if for lodging houses, pension houses and similar
a regulatory purpose, is within the ambit of this power. establishments in the City of Manila to protect public
This power necessarily includes the power to revoke and morals. Pursuant to the above policy, short-time
to impose conditions. admission and rate, wash-up rate or other similarly
A business permit is issued primarily to regulate the concocted terms, are hereby prohibited in hotels,
conduct of business and the City Mayor cannot, through motels, inns, lodging houses, pension houses and
the issuance of such permit, regulate the practice of a similar establishments in the City of Manila.
profession. Such a function is within the exclusive domain Petitioners argued that the Ordinance is
of the administrative agency specifically empowered by unconstitutional and void since it violates the right to
law to supervise the profession, in this case the privacy and the freedom of movement; it is an invalid
Professional Regulations Commission and the Board of exercise of police power; and it is an unreasonable and
Examiners in Optometry. ​(Acebedo Optical Company oppressive interference in their business. Is the
Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100152, March 31, ordinance valid?
2000) NO. Individual rights may be adversely affected only to
the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate
NOTE: ​However, certain professions may be affected by demands of public interest or public welfare. However
the exercise of police power. An ordinance in Manila was well-intentioned the Ordinance may be, it is in effect an
held not to regulate the practice of massage, much less arbitrary and whimsical intrusion into the rights of the
restrict the practice of such profession. Instead, the end establishments as well as their patrons. The Ordinance
sought to be obtained was to prevent the commission of needlessly restrains the operation of the businesses of the
immorality under the practice of prostitution in an petitioners as well as restricting the rights of their patrons
establishment masquerading as a massage clinic where the without sufficient justification. The Ordinance rashly
operation thereof offers to massage superficial parts of the equates wash rates and renting out a room more than
bodies of customers for hygienic or aesthetic purposes. twice a day with immorality without accommodating
(Physical Therapy Organization of the Philippines v. innocuous intentions. ​(White Light Corp., v. City of
Municipal Board of Manila, G.R. No. L-10488, August Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009)
30, 1957)
19) The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Pasay City passed
17) The Sangguniang Panglungsod of Marikina City an ordinance requiring all disco pub owners to have
enacted an ordinance “Regulating the Construction of all their hospitality girls tested for the AIDS virus.
Fences and Walls in the City of Marikina”. The Both disco pub owners and the hospitality girls
ordinance provided, among others, that fences should assailed the validity of the ordinance for being
not be more than 1 meter and fences in excess of 1 violative of their constitutional rights to privacy and to
meter shall be 80% see-thru. It further provided that freely choose a calling or business. Is the ordinance
in no case shall walls and fences be built within the five valid? Explain. (2010 Bar)
meter parking area allowance located between the YES. The ordinance is a valid exercise of police power.
front monument line and the building line of The right to privacy yields to certain paramount rights of
commercial and industrial establishments and the public and defers to the exercise of police power. The
educational and religious institutions. Is the ordinance ordinance is not prohibiting the disco pub owners and the
valid? hospitality girls from pursuing their calling or business
NO. It has long been settled that the State may not, under but is merely regulating it. ​(Social Justice Society v.
the guise of police power, permanently divest owners of Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R. No. 157870, Nov. 3, 2008)
the beneficial use of their property solely to preserve or This ordinance is a valid exercise of police power,
enhance the aesthetic appearance of the community. because its purpose is to safeguard public health.
Compelling the respondents to construct their fence in (Beltran v. Secretary of Health, G.R. No. 133640,
accordance with the assailed ordinance is, thus, a clear November 25, 2005)
encroachment on their right to property, which necessarily
NOTE: ​Municipal corporations cannot prohibit the the source of water supply as well as the drainage area
operation of night clubs. They may be regulated, but not of such water supply. Rivera contented that the
prevented from carrying on their business. ​(Dela Cruz v. municipal court of the City of Manila and the Court of
Paras, G.R. Nos. L-42571-72, July 25, 1983) First Instance of the City of Manila had no jurisdiction
to try her for the crime committed. Does the CFI of
20) The Quezon City Council issued Ordinance 2904 Manila have jurisdiction over the offense, considering
which requires the construction of arcades for that the washing of clothes was in the Mariquina
commercial buildings to be constructed in zones River?
designated as business zones in the zoning plan of YES. Boundaries usually mark the limit for the exercise
Quezon City, along EDSA. However, at the time the of the police powers by the municipality. However, in
ordinance was passed there was yet no building code certain instances – the performance of police functions,
passed by the legislature. Thus, the regulation of the the preservation of public health and acquisition of
construction of the buildings are left to the discretion territory for water supply – the municipality is granted
of the LGUs. Under this ordinance, the city council police power beyond its boundaries. The Santolan
required that the arcade is to be created, in a way, that pumping station is a part of the public water supply of
building owners are not allowed to construct his wall Manila with water taken from that part of the Mariquina
up to the edge of the property line, thereby creating a River, in the waters of which Rivera washed clothes.
space under the first floor. In effect, instead of using Public water supply is not limited to water supply owned
the property for their own purposes, property owners and controlled by a municipal corporation, but should be
relinquish the use of the space as an arcade for construed as meaning a supply of water for public and
pedestrians. Subsequently, Justice Gancayo sought to domestic use, furnished or to be furnished from water
be exempted from the application of the ordinance, works. The provisions of the Ordinance No. 149 would be
which the City Council responded favorably in his meaningless and absurd if made applicable only to the
favor. MMDA then sent a notice of demolition to Santolan pumping station and not to that part of the
Justice Gancayco, alleging that a portion of his Mariquina River immediately above it and from which the
building violates the National Building Code in pumping station draws water for the use of the inhabitants
relation to the ordinance. Is the Ordinance a valid of the City of Manila. ​(Rivera v. Campbell, G.R. No.
exercise of police power in regulating the use of L-11119, March 23, 1916)
property in a business zone?
YES. In the exercise of police power, property rights of 22) The Sanggunian of Cagayan De Oro enacted
individuals may be subject to restraints and burdens in Ordinance No. 3353 prohibiting the issuance of
order to fulfill the objectives of the government. Property business permits and cancelling existing business
rights must bow down to the primacy of police power permits for the operation of casinos; and Ordinance
because it must yield to the general welfare. It is clear that No. 3375-93, prohibiting the operation of a casino. Z
the objective of the ordinance were the health and safety assailed the validity of the ordinances on the ground
of the city and its inhabitants. At the time he ordinance that both violated P.D. 1869 which permits the
was passed, there was no national building code, thus operation of casinos, centralized and regulated by
there was no law which prohibits the city council from PAGCOR. The Sanggunian, however, contended that
regulating the construction of buildings, arcades and pursuant to the LGC, they have the police power to
sidewalks in their jurisdiction. ​(Gancayco v. City prohibit the operations of casinos for the general
Government of Quezon City, G.R. No. 177807, Oct. 11, welfare. Was there a valid exercise of police power?
2011) NO. PD 1869 creating the PAGCOR expressly authorized
it to centralize and regulate all games of chance including
21) Rivera was found washing her clothing near the casinos. This has not been amended by the LGC which
Santolan pumping station near Boso-Boso dam. empowers LGUs to prevent or suppress only those forms
Rivera’s act of washing clothing interfered with the of gambling prohibited by law. Casino gambling is,
purity of the water which was supplied to Manila by however, authorized under PD 1869. This decree has the
the Santolan pumping station. She was charged with status of a statute that cannot be annulled or amended by a
violation of Sec. 4(f) of Ordinance No. 149 which mere ordinance. PAGCOR can set up casinos with or
prohibited washing of garments in the waters of any without the consent of the host local government.
river or water course. Manila’s municipal board (Magtajas v. Pryce Properties and PAGCOR, G.R. No.
adopted the same section by virtue of the Acts of the 111097, July 20, 1994)
Philippine Commission and was authorized to purify
23) May LGUs expropriate a property to provide a the RTC, praying for the annulment of the Resolution
right-of-way to residents of a subdivision? due to its being unconstitutional, confiscatory,
NO. Considering that the residents who need a feeder road improper, and without force and effect. The City
are all subdivision lot owners, it is the obligation of the countered that the Resolution was a mere
subdivision owner to acquire a right-of- way for them. authorization; hence, the suit of the spouses was
However, the failure of the subdivision owner to provide premature. Will the petition for certiorari and
an access road does not shift the burden to the LGU prohibition prosper?
concerned. To deprive respondents of their property NO. Certiorari did not lie against the Sangguniang
instead of compelling the subdivision owner to comply Panglungsod, which was not a part of the Judiciary
with his obligation under the law is an abuse of the power settling an actual controversy involving legally
of eminent domain and is patently illegal. Worse, the demandable and enforceable rights when it adopted
expropriation will actually benefit the subdivision’s owner Resolution No. 552, but a legislative and policy-making
who will be able to circumvent his commitment to provide body declaring its sentiment or opinion. Furthermore, the
road access to the subdivision in conjunction with his remedy of prohibition was not called for, considering that
development permit and license to sell from the Housing only a resolution expressing the desire of the Sangguniang
and Land Use Regulatory Board, and also be relieved of Panglungsod to expropriate the petitioners’ property was
spending his own funds for a right-of-way. ​(Barangay issued. It was premature for the petitioners to mount any
Sindalan v. CA G.R. No. 150640, March 22, 2007) judicial challenge, for the power of eminent domain could
be exercised by the City only through the filing of a
24) Municipality of Panay issued resolutions verified complaint in the proper court. Before the City as
authorizing the municipal government through the the expropriating authority filed such verified complaint,
Mayor to initiate expropriation proceedings. A petition no expropriation proceeding could be said to exist. Until
for expropriation was filed by the Municipality of then, the petitioners as the owners could not also be
Panay. deprived of their property under the power of eminent
Petitioners are the owners of parcels of land which is domain. ​(Spouses Antonio And Fe V. Court Of Appeals,
going to be expropriated by the LGU. Petitioners City Mayor And City Council Of Mandaluyong City,
argue that such expropriation was based only on a G.R. No. 156684, 6 April 2011)
resolution and not on an ordinance contrary to Sec. 19
of LGC. Is the exercise of eminent domain by the 26) NAPOCOR undertook the Agus River
Municipality of Panay valid? Hydroelectric Power Plant Project to generate
NO. The LGC expressly requires an ordinance for the electricity for Mindanao. The project included the
purpose of expropriation, and a resolution which merely construction of several underground tunnels to be
expresses the sentiment of the municipal council will not used in diverting the water flow from the Agus River
suffice. As respondent's expropriation in this case was to the hydroelectric plants. Merry, Pippin and Sam
based merely on a resolution, such expropriation is clearly belatedly discovered that one of the underground
defective. While the Court is aware of the constitutional tunnels of NAPOCOR traversed their land. The said
policy promoting local autonomy, the court cannot grant underground tunnel had been constructed without
judicial sanction to an LGU's exercise of its delegated their knowledge and consent. Merry, Pippin and Sam
power of eminent domain in contravention of the very law now seek for recovery of the property and damages
giving it such power. ​[Beluso v. Municipality of Panay because according to them, the presence of the tunnel
(Capiz), G.R. No. 153974, Aug. 7, 2006] deprived them of the agricultural, commercial,
industrial, and residential value of their land.
25) Spouses Yusay owned a parcel of land, half of Moreover, according to Merry, Pippin and Sam their
which they used as their residence, and the rest they land had also become an unsafe place for habitation
rented out to nine other families. Allegedly, the land because of the loud sound of the water rushing
was their only property and only source of income. through the tunnel and the constant shaking of the
The Sangguniang Panglungsod of Mandaluyong City ground. Does the construction of the tunnel constitute
adopted a resolution authorizing the City Mayor to taking of land which entitles Merry, Pippin and Sam
take the necessary legal steps for the expropriation of to just compensation?
the land of the spouses spouses for the purpose of YES. There was full taking on the part of NAPOCOR,
developing it for low cost housing for the less notwithstanding that the owners were not completely and
privileged but deserving city inhabitants. The spouses actually dispossessed. Taking of private property for
then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in public use, to be compensable, need not be an actual
physical taking or appropriation. Compensable taking construction of the building without a permit because
includes destruction, restriction, diminution, or his former house was destroyed by a typhoon. X was
interruption of the rights of ownership or of the common charged and convicted of violating the Ordinance for
and necessary use and enjoyment of the property in a having constructed a building that destroys the view of
lawful manner, lessening or destroying its value. the public plaza without a mayor’s permit. Is the
(NAPOCOR v. Hrs. of Macabangkit Sangkay, G.R. No. ordinance valid?
165828, Aug. 24, 2011) NO. The ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive, in that
it operates to permanently deprive appellants of the right
27) Petitioner Himlayang Pilipino filed a petition to to use their own property; hence, it oversteps the bounds
annul an ordinance which provides that at least 6% of of police power, and amounts to a taking of appellants’
the total area of every private cemetery shall be set property without just compensation. But while property
aside for charity burial grounds of deceased paupers. may be regulated in the interest of the general welfare
Petitioner alleged that the ordinance is an invalid and, in its pursuit, the State may prohibit structures
exercise of the power of eminent domain as they were offensive to sight, the State may not, under the guise of
not paid just compensation. The City government of police power, permanently divest owners of the beneficial
Quezon City, however, argued that the ordinance is an use of their property and practically confiscate them
exercise of police power, hence, just compensaition is solely to preserve or assure the aesthetic appearance of the
not necessary. Is the ordinance valid? community. To legally achieve that result, the
NO. The power to regulate does not include the power to municipality must give the owners just compensation and
prohibit. A fortiori, the power to regulate does not include an opportunity to be heard. The Ordinance was beyond
the power to confiscate. The ordinance in question not the authority of said municipality to enact, and is therefore
only confiscates but also prohibits the operation of a null and void. ​(People v. Fajardo, G.R No. L-12172, Aug.
memorial park cemetery. There is no reasonable relation 29, 1958)
between the setting aside of at least 6% of the total area of
a private cemeteries for charity burial grounds of deceased 29) The Philippine Tourism Authority sought the
paupers and the promotion of health, morals, good order, expropriation of 282 hectares of rolling land situated
safety, or the general welfare of the people. in Barangay Alubog and Babag, Cebu City, under an
Section 9 of the assailed Ordinance is not a mere police express authority to acquire by purchase or by any
regulation but an outright confiscation. It is not an other means any private land within the tourism zone.
exercise of police power but eminent domain. It deprives Petitioner contended that the taking was not for public
a person of his private property without due process of use and that there is no specific constitutional
law and without payment of just compensation. Instead of provision authorizing the taking of private property
building or maintaining a public cemetery for this for tourism purposes. Is the contention valid?
purpose, the city passes the burden to private cemeteries. NO. Expropriation by the PTA under PD 564 of land
Police power does not involve the taking or confiscation owned by the local government for promotion of tourism
of property with the exception of few cases where there is is a valid exercise of the State’s power of eminent domain.
a necessity to confiscate private property in order to The concept of public use is not limited to traditional
destroy it for the purpose of protecting the peace and purposes. Here, as elsewhere, the idea that “public use” is
order and of promoting the general welfare. ​(Quezon City strictly limited to clear cases of “use by the public” has
v. Ericta, G.R. No. L-34915, June 24, 1983) been discarded. The State’s power of eminent domain
extends to the expropriation of land for tourism purposes
28) The municipal council of Baao, Camarines Sur, although this specific objective is not expressed in the
passed an ordinance providing that any person who Constitution. The policy objectives of the framers can be
will construct or repair a building should before doing expressed only in general terms such as social justice,
such, obtain a written permit from the Municipal local autonomy, conservation and development of the
Mayor and if said building destroys the view of the national patrimony public interest, and general welfare,
Public Plaza or occupies any public property, it shall among others. ​(Heirs of Ardona v. Reyes, G.R. No. G.R
be removed at the expense of the owner of the building No. L-60549, Oct. 26, 1983)
or house. X filed a written request for a permit to
construct a building on a parcel of land adjacent to
their gasoline station. The request was denied because
the proposed building would destroy the view or
beauty of the public plaza. X proceeded with the
30) Sps. Hipolito are the registered owners of a parcel 30 percent of the gross receipts of admission fees.
of land in Santa Ana, Manila.They applied for Meanwhile, RA 9167 was enacted on June 7, 2002
permission to erect a strong-material residential creating the Film Development Council of the
building on the lot. For more than forty days, the city Philippines (FDCP). Secs 13 and 14 of RA 9167
engineer took no action. Wherefore, Hipolito wrote provided for the tax treatment of certain graded films
him a letter manifesting his readiness to pay the fee — film producers were to be entitled to an incentive
and to comply with existing ordinances governing the equivalent to the amusement tax imposed and collected
issuance of building permits. The engineer declined to by the cities, subject to various rates depending on the
issue the permit as according to the Urban grade of their film, to be remitted to the FDCP. FDCP
Commission’s Adopted Plan for the Sta. Ana, the had sent demand letters for unpaid amusement tax
streets will be widened to the respective widths of reward with five percent surcharge for each month of
22-m. and 10 m and will affect the proposed building. delinquency due to the producers. The proprietors and
Was the engineer correct in not issuing the permit? cinema operators refused to remit the amounts as
NO. The refusal of the city engineer to issue a building FDCP demanded while Cebu City insisted on its claim
permit to private landowners constitutes eminent domain on the amounts in question. Then, Cebu City filed a
when there is no law or ordinance requiring private land petition for declaratory relief before RTC, Branch 14,
owners to conform to the proposed widening of the street asking it to declare Secs. 13 and 14 of RA 9167 invalid
approved by the Urban Commission. Where the City has and unconstitutional. Colon Heritage Corporation
not expropriated the strip of land affected by the proposed filed a similar petition before the RTC Branch 5,
widening of the street, inasmuch as there is no legislative seeking to declare Sec. 14 unconstitutional. The RTC
authority to establish a building line, the denial of this declared Secs. 13 and 14 of RA 9167 unconstitutional.
permit would amount to taking of private property for The RTC said what RA 9167 seeks to accomplish is the
public use under the power of eminent domain without segregation of amusement taxes raised and collected
following the procedure prescribed for the exercise of by Cebu City and its subsequent transfer to FDCP.
such power. The city engineer required to issue the This, it said, is a confiscatory measure where the
building permit upon payment of the fees. ​(Hipolito v. national government extracts money from the local
City of Manila, G.R No. L-3887, Aug. 21, 1950) government’s coffers and transfers it to the FDCP, a
private agency, which in turn, will award the money to
31) The President, through AO 372, ordered the private persons, film producers, for having produced
withholding of 10% of the LGUs' IRA "pending the graded films. Is the RTC correct?
assessment and evaluation by the Development Budget YES. Under RA 9167, covered LGUs still have the power
Coordinating Committee of the emerging fiscal to levy amusement taxes, albeit at the end of the day, they
situation" in the country. Is the AO valid? will derive no revenue therefrom. The same, however,
NO. A basic feature of local fiscal autonomy is the cannot be said for FDCP and the producers of graded
automatic release of the shares of LGUs in the national films since the amounts thus levied by the LGUs which
internal revenue. This is mandated by no less than the should rightfully accrue to them, they being the taxing
Constitution. The LGC specifies further that the release authority-will be going to their coffers. As a matter of
shall be made directly to the LGU concerned within five fact, it is only through the exercise by the LGU of said
days after every quarter of the year and “shall not be power that the funds to be used for the amusement tax
subject to any lien or holdback that may be imposed by reward can be raised. Without said imposition, the
the national government for whatever purpose.” As a rule, producers of graded films will receive nothing from the
the term "shall" is a word of command that must be given owners, proprietors and lessees of cinemas operating
a compulsory meaning. The provision is, therefore, within the territory of the covered LGU.
imperative. ​(Pimentel Jr. v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 132988, Taking the resulting scheme into consideration, it is
July 19, 2000) apparent that what Congress did in this instance was not
to exclude the authority to levy amusement taxes from the
32) In 1993, Cebu City imposed amusement taxes taxing power of the covered LGUs, but to earmark, if not
under Sec. 140 of the LGC and passed “Revised altogether confiscate, the income to be received by the
Omnibus Tax Ordinance of the City of Cebu.” Secs. 42 LGU from the taxpayers in favor of and for transmittal to
and 43, Chapter XI of the city ordinance requires FDCP, instead of the taxing authority. This is in clear
proprietors, lessees or operators of theatres, cinemas, contravention of the constitutional command that taxes
concert halls, circuses, boxing stadia, and other places levied by LGUs shall accrue exclusively to said LGU and
of amusement, to pay an amusement tax equivalent to
is repugnant to the power of LGUs to apportion their 34) Bayantel was granted by Congress, after the
resources in line with their priorities. effectivity of LGC, a legislative franchise with tax
It is a basic precept that the inherent legislative powers of exemption privileges which partly reads: “the grantee,
Congress, broad as they may be, are limited and confined its successors or assigns shall be liable to pay the same
within the four walls of the Constitution. Accordingly, taxes on their real estate, buildings and personal
whenever the legislature exercises its power to enact, property, exclusive of this franchise, as other persons
amend, and repeal laws, it should do so without going or corporations are now or hereafter may be required
beyond the parameters wrought by the organic law. by law to pay.” This provision existed in the
In the case at bar, through the application and company’s franchise prior to the effectivity of the
enforcement of Sec. 14 of RA 9167, the income from the LGC. Quezon City then enacted an ordinance
amusement taxes levied by the covered LGUs did not and imposing a real property tax on all real properties
will under no circumstance accrue to them, not even located within the city limits and withdrawing all
partially, despite being the taxing authority therefore. exemptions previously granted. Among properties
Congress, therefore, clearly overstepped its plenary covered are those owned by the company. Bayantel
legislative power, the amendment being violative of the asserts that its properties are exempt from tax under
fundamental law's guarantee on local autonomy. ​(Film its franchise. Is Bayantel correct?
Development Council of the Philippines v. Colon YES. The properties are exempt from taxation. The grant
Heritage Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 203754, June 16, of taxing powers to local governments under the
2015) Constitution and the LGC does not affect the power of
Congress to grant tax exemptions.
33) The Province of Palawan passes an ordinance The term "exclusive of the franchise" is interpreted to
requiring all owners/operators of fishing vessels that mean properties actually, directly and exclusively used in
fish in waters surrounding the province to invest ten the radio and telecommunications business. The
percent (10%) of their net profits from operations subsequent piece of legislation which reiterated the phrase
therein in any enterprise located in Palawan. NARCO “exclusive of this franchise” found in the previous tax
Fishing Corp., a Filipino corporation with head office exemption grant to the company is an express and real
in Navotas, Metro Manila, challenges the ordinance as intention on the part of the Congress to once again remove
unconstitutional. Decide. from the LGC’s delegated taxing power, all of the
The ordinance is invalid. The ordinance was apparently company’s properties that are actually, directly and
enacted pursuant to Art. X, Sec. 7 of the Constitution, exclusively used in the pursuit of its franchise. ​(The City
which entitles local governments to an equitable share in Government of Quezon City, et al., v. Bayan
the proceeds of the utilization and development of the Telecommunications, Inc., G.R. No. 162015, March 6,
national wealth within their respective areas. However, 2006)
this should be made pursuant to law. A law is needed to
implement this provision and a local government cannot
constitute itself unto a law. In the absence of a law, the
ordinance in question is invalid.