The following are the fundamental/inherent powers of the state:

1. Police Power
2. Power of Eminent Domain
3. Power of Taxation

Police Power
Police power is the power of the state to promote public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of
liberty and property. It is the most pervasive, the least limitable, and the most demanding of the three
fundamental powers of the State.

The state, in order to promote general welfare, may interfere with personal liberty, with property, and with
business and occupations. Persons may be subjected to all kinds of restraint and burdens in order to secure
the general comfort, health and prosperity of the state and to this fundamental aim of our Government, the
rights of the individual are subordinated. (Ortigas and Co., Limited Partnership v. Feati Bank and Trust Co,
December 14, 1979).

What are the basic purposes/aspects of police power:

1. to promote the general welfare, comfort and convenience of the people; (ASSOCIATION OF SMALL
LANDOWNERS VS. SECRETARY, 175 SCRA 343; US VS. TORIBIO, 15 Phil. 85)

2. to promote and preserve public health; (VILLANUEVA VS. CASTANEDA, September 21, 1987; DECS
VS. SAN DIEGO, 180 SCRA 533 [NMAT]; LORENZO VS. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH, 50 Phil. 595 -
apprehend and confine lepers in a leprosarium

3. to promote and protect public safety; (AGUSTIN VS. EDU, 88 SCRA 195; TAXICAB OPERATORS
VS. JUINIO, 119 SCRA 897)

Requisites for a valid exercise of police power

1. Lawful subject - The interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class,
require the exercise of the police power; and

2. Lawful means - The means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose
and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
Zabal v. Duterte, G.R. No. 238467, February 12, 2019

NO, the assailed governmental measure in this case is within the scope of police power cannot be disputed.
Verily, the statues from which the said measure draws authority and the constitutional provisions which
serve as its framework are primarily concerned with the environment and health, safety, and well-being of
the people, the promotion and securing of which are clearly legitimate objectives of governmental efforts
and regulation.

Ermita-Malate Hotel v City Mayor of Manila, G.R. No. L-24693, July 31, 19967

The mantle of protection associated with the due process guaranty does not cover the hotel and motel
operators. This particular manifestation of a police power measure being specifically aimed to safeguard
public morals is immune from such imputation of nullity resting purely on conjecture and unsupported by
anything of substance. To hold otherwise would be to unduly restrict and narrow the scope of police power
which has been properly characterized as the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers,
extending as it does "to all the great public needs."

White Light Corporation vs. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009

A reasonable relation must exist between the purposes of the measure and the means employed for its
accomplishment, for even under the guise of protecting the public interest, personal rights and those
pertaining to private property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded. It must also be evident that no
other alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private rights can work. In the
present case, there is less intrusive measures which can be employed such as curbing the proliferation of
prostitutes and drug dealers through active police work would be more effective in easing the situation.

OSG v. Ayala Land, Inc., 600 SCRA 617, September 18, 2009

Mall owners and operators cannot be validly compelled to provide free parking to their customers because
requiring them to provide free parking space to their customers is beyond the scope of police poewrs. It
unreasonably restrics the right to use property for business purposes and amounts to confiscation of property.

Requisites for the valid exercise of police power by the delegate

1. Express grant by law;
2. Must not be contrary to law; and
3. GR: Within territorial limits of LGUs.
XPN: When exercised to protect water supply. (Wilson v. City of Mountain Lake Terraces, 417 P.2d 632,
August 18, 1966)

MMDA v. Trackworks, G.R. No. 179554, December 16, 2009

The MMDA cannot exercise police powers since its powers are limited to the formulation, coordination,
regulation, implementation, preparation, management, monitoring, setting of policies, installing a system,
and administration. Nothing in RA No. 7924 granted the MMDA police power, let alone legislative power.

EMINENT DOMAIN

The power of eminent domain is the inherent right of the State to condemn private property to public use
upon payment of just compensation.

The power of the nation or the sovereign state to take, or to authorize the taking of private proerty for public
use without the owner's consent, conditioned upon payment of just compensation. (Brgy. Sindala, San
Fernando, Pampanga v. CA, G.R. No. 150640, March 22, 2007)

Conditions for the exercise of the Power of Eminent Domain

1. Taking of private property;

2. For public use;
3. Just compensation; and
4. Observance of due process.

There is no Eminent Domain to speak of when there is a Sale of Private property.

Requisites for a valid taking

1. The expropriator must enter a private property;
2. Entry must be for more than a momentary period;
3. Entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority;
4. Property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected; and
5. Utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of
all beneficial enjoyment of the property.

Nature of property taken

GR: All private property capable of ownership, including services, can be taken.
XPNs:
a. Money; and
b. Choses in action - personal right not reduced in possession but recoverable by a suit at law such as right
to receive, demand or recover debt, demand or damanges on a cause of action ex contracty or for a tort or
omission of duty.

Requisites before an LGU can exercise Eminent Domain

1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local chief executive, in behalf
of the LGU, to exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue expropriation proceedings over a particular
private property;
2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose or welfare, or for the benefit of the
poor and the landless;
3. There is payment of just compensation, as required under Section 9, Article III of the Constitution, and
other pertinent laws.
4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the ownder of the property sought to be
expropriated, but said offer was not accepted.

Expansive concept of "Public Use"

Public use does not necessarily mean "use by the public at large." Whatever may be beneficially employed
for the general welfare satisfies the requirement. Moreover, that only few people benefit from the
exproporiation does not diminish its public-use character because the notion of public use now includes the
broader notion of indirect public benefit or advantage. (Manosca v. CA, G.R. 166440, January 29, 1996)
Concept of Vicarious Benefit

Abandons the traditional concept (number of actual beneficiaries determines public purpose). Public use
now includes the broader notion of indirect public advantage, i.e. conversion of aslum area into a model
housing community, urban land reform and housing. There is a vicarious advantage to the society.
(Filstream International Incorporated v. CA, 284 SCRA 716, January 23, 1998)

The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor-General, instituted a complaint for expropriation of a
piece of land in Taguig, alleging that the National Historical Institute declared said land as a national
historical landmark, because it was the site of the birth of Felix Manalo, the founder of Iglesia ni Cristo.
The Republic filed an action to expropriate the land. Petitioners argued that the expropriation was not for a
public purpose. Is this correct?

YES. Public use should not be restricted to the traditional uses. It has been held that places invested with
unusual historical interest is a public use for which the power of eminient domain may be authorized. The
purpose in setting up the marker is essentially to recognize the distinctive contribution of the late Felix
Manalo to the culture of the Philippines, rather than to commemorate his founding and leadership of the
Iglesia ni Cristo. The practical reality that greater benefit may be derived by members of the Iglesia ni
Cristo than by most others could well be true but such a peculiar advantage still remains to be merely
incidental and secondary in nature. Indeed, that only a few (people) would actually benefit from the
expropriation of property does not necessarily diminish the essence and character of public use.

Just Compensation

It is the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from the private owner (owner's loss) by the
expropriator. It is usually the fair market value (FMV) of the property and must include consequential
damages (damages to the other interest of the owner attributed to the expropiration) minus consequential
benefits (increase in the value of other interests attributed to new use of the former property).

Fair Market Value

The price that may be agreed upon by parties who are willing but are not compelled to enter into a contract
of sale. (City of Manila v. Estrada, G.R. No. 7749, September 9, 1913)

Period to determine just compensation

The value of the property must be determined either at the time of taking or filing of the complaint,
whichever comes first. (EPZA v. Dulay, G.R. No. 59603, April 29, 1987)

Spouses Salvador owns a land where a one-storey building is erected. The said land is subject to
expropriation wherein the DPWH shall construct the NLEX extension exiting McArthur Highway. DPWH
paid the spouses amounting to P685,000 which was the fair market value of the land and building. RTC
issued a Writ of Possession in favor of the Republic but decided to pay an additional amount corresponding
to the capital gains tax paid by the spouses. The Republic, [?] whether the capital gains tax on the transfer
of the expropriated property can be considered as consequential damages that may be awarded to
respondents.

NO. Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property sought to be expropriated.
The measure is not the taker's gain but the owner's loss. The compensation, to be just, must be fair not only
to the owner but also to the taker. Consequential damages are only awarded if as a result of the expropriation,
the remaining property of the owner suffers from an impairment or decrease in value. In this case, no
evidence was submitted to prove any impairment or decrease in value of the subject property as a result of
the expropriation.

Form of payment

GR: Compensation has to be paid in money.

XPN: In cases involving CARP, compensation may be in bonds or stocks, for it has been held as a non-
traditional exercise of the power of eminent domain. It is not an ordinary expropiration where only a specific
property of relatively limited area is sought to be taken by the State from its ownder for a specific and
perhaps local purpose. It is rather a revolutionary kind of expropriation. (Association of Small Landownders
in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742, July 14, 1989)

Land Bank of the Phil. v. Hababag, G.R. No. 172352, September 16, 2015

The ownder is entitled to the payment of interest from the time of taking until just compensation is actually
paid to him. Taxes paid by him from the time of the taking until the transfer of title (which can only be done
after actual payment of just compensation), during which he did not enjoy any beneficial use of the property,
are reimbursable by the expropriator.

Pursuant to Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 700 series of 2013, from July 1, 2013
Effect of Delay

GR: Non-payment by the government does not entitle private owners to recover possession of the property
because expropriation is an in rem proceeding, not an ordinary sale, but only entitle them to demand
payment of the fair market value of the property.

XPNs:
1. When there is deliberate refusal to pay just compensation; and
2. Government's failure to pay compensation within 5 years from the finality of the judgment in the
expropriation proceedings. This is in connection with the principile that the government cannot keep the
property and dishonor the judgment. (Republic v. Lim, G.R. No. 161656, June 29, 2005)

Abandonment of intended use and right of repurchase

xxx, with respect to the element of public use, the expropriator should commit to use the property pursuant
to the purpose stated in the petition for expropriation filed, failing which, it should file another petition for
the new purpose. If not, it is then incumbent upon the expropriator to return the said property to its private
owner, if the latter desires to reacquire the same. Otherwise, the judgment of expropriation suffers an
intrinsic flaw, as it would lack one indispensable element for the proper exercise of the power of eminent
domain, namely, the particular public purpose for which the porperty will be devoted. Accordingly, the
private property owner would be denied due process of law xxx

Republic v. Heirs of Borbon, G.R. No. 165354, January 12, 2015

To continue with the expropriation proceedings despite the definite cessation of the public purpose of the
project would result in the rendition of an invalid judgment in favor of the expropriator due to the absence
of the essential element of public use.

TAXATION

It is the process by which the government, through its legislative branch, imposes and collects revenues to
defray the necessary expenses of the government, and to be able to carry out, in particular, any and all
projects that are supposed to be for the common good. Simply put, taxation is the method by which these
contributions are exacted.
Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the State. Its concern is not the
relation between private individuals. What it does is to declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere
inaccessible to any power holder. (People v. Marty, G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991)

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 US 624 (1943)

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political
controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal
principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property ,to free speech, a free press,
freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend
on the outcome of no elections."

The Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against private individuals. In the absence of governmental
interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked. The equal protection erects no
shield against private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful. (Yrasegui v. PAL, G.R. No. 168081,
October 17, 2008)

Exception to the Rule:

However, where the husband invoked his right to privacy of communication and correspondence against a
private individual, his wife, who had forcibly taken from his cabinet documents and private correspondence,
and presented as evidence against him, the Supreme Court held these papers are inadmissible in evidence,
upholing the husband's right to privacy. (Zulueta v. CA, G.R. No. 107383, February 20, 1996)

RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPOERTY

Life
The clear and unequivocal intent of the Framers of the 1987 Constitution in protecting the life of the unborn
from conception was to prevent the Legislature from enacting a measure legalizing abortion. It was so clear
that even the Court cannot interpret it otherwise. This intent of the Framers was captured in the record of
the proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional Commision. (Imbong vs Ochoa)

Liberty
It is not only the right of a citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration,
but the term is deemed to embrace the right of a citizen to be free in the engagement of all his faculties; to
be free to use them in all lawful ways. (Allegeyer vs. Louisianna, 165 U.S. 578, January 6, 1897)

Property
It refers to things which are susceptible of appropriation and which are already possessed and found in the
possession of man.

Due process clause

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the laws.

Due process means:

1. There shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the legislature;
2. It shall be reasonable in its operation;
3. It shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed; and
4. It shall be applicable alike to all citizens of the State or to all of a class. (People v. Cayat, G.R. No. L-
45987, May 5, 1939)

Purpose

1. Prevent undue encroachment against the life, liberty and property of individuals.
2. Secure the individual from the arbitrary exercise of powers of government, unrestrained by the
established principles of private rights and distributive justice.
3. Protect property from confiscation by legislative enactments from seizure, forfeiture, and destruction
without a trial and conviction by the ordinary modes of judicial procedures. (Suarez, 2016)

Kinds of due process

Substantive due process

It requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life, liberty, or
property.

e.g. Publication of a law

City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr. G.R. 118127, April 12, 2005

These lawful establishments may only be regulated. 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, operation and patronizing those motels and
property in terms of investments made and the salaries to be paid to those who are employed.

Procedural due process

Is the aspect of due process which serves as a restriction on actions of judicial and quasi-judicial agencies
of the government. It refers to the method and manner by which a law is enforced.

The fundamental elements of procedural due process

1. Notice (to be meaningful, must be as to time and place);

2. Opportunity to be heard; and
3. Court/tribunals must have jurisdiction.

A complaint was filed against respondent Camille Gonzales, then Chief Librarian, Catalog Division, of the
National Library for dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The DECS investigating committee was created to inquire into the charges against Gonzales. Is she entitled
to be informed of the findings and recommendations of the investigating committee?

Pefianco v. Moral, GR. No. 132248, January 19, 2000

No. It must be stressed that the disputed investigation report is an internal communication between the
DECS Secretary and the Investigation Committee, and it is not generally intended for the perusal of
respondent or any other person for that matter, except the DECS Secretary. She is entitled only to the
administrative decision based on substantial evidence made of record, and a reasonable opportunity to meet
the charges and the evidence presented against her during the hearings of the investigation committee.

DISCIPLINARY CASES INVOLVING STUDENTS

Due process in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail proceedings and hearings similar to
those prescribed for actions and proceedings in courts of justice; that the proceedings may be summary;
that cross-examination is not an essential part of the investigation or hearing; and that the required proof in
a student disciplinary action, which is an administrative case, is neither proof beyond reasonable doubt nor
preponderance of evidence but only substantial evidence or "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."

What is crucial is that the official action must meet minimum standards of fairness to the individual, which
generally encompass the right of adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

It is not required that procedural due process be afforded at every stage of developing disciplinary action.
What is required is that an adequate hearing be held before the final act of dismissal. (Cudia v.
Superintendent of the PMA, GR. No. 211362, February 24, 2015)

Agabon v. NLRC, G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004

CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS

Protects the individual from the government and assures him of ohis rights in criminal, civil or
administrative proceedings.

STATUTORY DUE PROCESS

While found in the Labor Code and Implementing Rules, it protects employees from being unjustly
terminated without just cause after notice and hearing.

Effect when due process is not observed

The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic constitutional rights, courts are ousted from
their jurisdiction.
The violation of aparty's right to odue process raises a serious jurisdictional issue which cannot be glossed
over or disregarded at will. Where the denial of the fundamental right to due process is apparent, a decision
rendered in disregard of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction. This rule is equally true in quasi-judicial
and administrative proceedings, for the constitutional guarantee that no man shall be deprived of life, liberty,
or property without due process is unqualified by the type of proceedings (whether judicial or
administrative) where he stands to lose the same.

In a dispute involving mining claims, Apo Cement Corporation wished to take over mining claims of certain
areas that overlapped with the portions of the claims of Mingson Mining Industries Corporation. The case
was eventually brought to the Panel of Arbitrators (POA) and they uphold a resolution in favor of Apo
Cement without requiring the parties to file pleadings. Mingson brought the case to the DENR Mining
Arbitration Board (MAB) stating that...

Yes. The Implementing Rules of theh Philippine Mining Act of 1995 clearly require that the parties
involved in a mining dispute be given the opportunity to be heard. In this case, it has been established that
the POA proceeded to resolve the present mining dispute without affording either party any fair and
reasonable opportunity to be heard, in violation of some of the provisions of DENR. Hence, Mingson's due
process rights were violated, thereby rendering the POA's Decision null and void. (Apo Cement v. Mingson,
G.R. No. 206728, November 12, 2014)

Effect of Waiver or Estoppel

Due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and rasonable opportunity to explain their
respoective sides of the controversy. Thus, when the party seeking due process was in fact given several
opportunities to be heard and air his side, but it is by his own fault or choice he squanders these chances,
then his cry for due process must fail.

Relativity of due process

Relativity of due process arises when the definition of due process has been left to the best judgment of our
judiciary considering the peculiarity and the circumstances of each case. In a litany of cases that have been
decided in this jurisdiction, the common requirement to be able to conform to due process is fair play,
respect for justice and respect for the better rights of others. In accordance with the standards of due process,
any court at any particular time, will be well guided, instead of being merely...

Due process in judicial proceedings

Whether in civil or criminal judicial proceedings, due process requires that there be:
1. An impartial and disinterested court clothed by law with authority to hear and determine the matter before
it; NOTE: The test of impartiality is whether the judge's intervention tends to prevent the proper
presentation of the case or the ascertainment of the truth.
2. Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the defendant or the property which is the subject matter of the
proceedings.
3. The parties must be given an opportunity to be heard.
4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.

Requisites of due process in administrative proceedings

1. Right to a hearing which includes the right to present one's case and submit evidence in support thereof;
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
3. The decision must be supported by evidence;
4. Such evidence must be substantial;
5. The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing
6. The body must act on his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy; and
7. The body should render its decision in such manner that the parties can know the various issues involved
and the reason for the decision rendered.

Due process in deportation proceedings

Although a deportation proceeding does not partake of the nature of acriminal action, however, considering
that it is a harsh and extraordinary administrative proceeding affecting the freedom and liberty of a person,
the constitutional right of such person to due process should not be denied. Thus, the provisions of the Rules
of Court of the Philippines particularly on criminal procoedure are applicable to deportation proceedings.
(Lao Gi v. CA, GR. No. 81789, December 29, 1989)

Instances when hearings are not necessary

1. When administrative agencies are exercising their quasi-legislative functions;

2. Abatement of nuisance per se;
3. Granting by courts of provisional remedies;
4. Cases of preventive suspension;
5. Removal of temporary employees in the government service;
6. Issuance of warrants of distraint and/or levy by the BIR Commissioner;
7. Cancellation of the passport of a person charged with a crime.

VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS DOCTRINE

A law is vague when it lacks comprehensive standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily
guess at its common meaning and differ as to its application.

In such instance, the statute is repugnant ot the Constitution because:

1. It violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of
what conduct to avoid; and
2. It leaves law enforcerse and unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions. (People v. de la Piedra,
G.R. No. 128777, January 24, 2001)

HIERARCHY OF RIGHTS

There is a hirarchy of constitutional rights. While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the
primacy of human rights over property rights is recognized.

Property and property rights can be lost through prescription; but human rights are imprescriptible.

In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and assembly occupy a preferred position as
they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political institutions; and such priority
"gives these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not permitting dubious intrusions."

Judicial standards of review

Deferential review (or Rational Basis Test) - Laws are upheld if they rationally further a legitimate
governmental interest, without courts seriously inquiring into the substantiality of such interest and
examining the alternative means by which the objectives could be achieved.
The rational basis test is the minimum level of scrutiny that all government actions challenged under the
equal protection clause must meet.

Strict scrutiny - The focus is on the presence of compelling, rather than substantial governmental interest
and on the absence of less restrictive means for achieving that interest.

The strict scrutiny test is used in discriminations based on race or those which result in violations of
fundamental rights. Under the strict scrutiny test, to be valid the classification must promote a compelling
state interest.

Intermediate review- The substantiality of the governmental interest is seriously looked into and the
availability of less restrictive alternatives is considered.

The intermediate scrutiny test is used in discriminations based on gender or illegitimacy of children. Under
the intermediate scrutiny test, the classification must be substantially related to an important government
objective.

Laws not subject to the strict or intermediate scrutiny test are evaluated under the rational basis test, which
is the easiest test to satisfy since the classification must only show a rational relationship to a legitimate
government purpose.

Mosqueda v. Pilipino Banana G.R. No. 189185, August 16, 2016

The City of Davao enacted an ordinance prohibiting aerial spraying in all agricultural entities in that City
and requiring affected parties to shift to other modes of pesticide application within a three-month period
under pain of penalty.

The required civil works for the conversion to truck-mounted boom spraying alone will consume
considerable time and financial resources given the topography and geographical features of the plantations.
As such, the completion could not be completed within the short timeframe of three months. Requiring the
respondents and other affected individuals to comply with the consequences of the ban within the three-
month period under pain of penalty like fine, imprisonment and even cancellation of business permits would
definitely be oppressive as to constitute abuse of police power.
The constitutional right to equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated should
betreated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. It requires public bodies and
institutions to treat similarly situated individuals in a similar manner. The guarantee of equal protection
secures every person within the State's jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether
occasioned by the express terms of a statute or by its improper execution through the State's duly constituted
authorities.

The Government carries the burden to prove that the classification is necessary to achieve a compelling
state interest, and that it is the least restrictive means to protect such interest. If the groupings are
characterized by substantial distinctions that make real differences, one class may be treated and regulated
differently from another. In other words, a valid classification must be:
1. based on substantial distinctions;
2. germane to the purpose of the law;
3. not limited to existing conditions only; and
4. equally applicable to all members of the class.

The reasonability of a distinction and sufficiency of the justification given by the Government for its
conduct is gauged by using the means-end test. This test requires analysis of:
1. the interests of the public that generally requires its exercise, as distinguished from those of a particular
class; and
2. the means employed that are necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and are not unduly
oppressive upon individuals.

Applying the rational basis test, the ordinance of Davao prohibiting aerial spraying in all agricultural entities
therein as the practice produces pesticide drift causing inconvenience and harm to the residents and
degrades the environment, violates the equal protection clause, hence, should be declared unconstitutional.
The occurence of pesticide drift is not limited to aerial spraying but results from the conduct of any mode
of pesticide application. Even manual spraying or truck-mounted boom spraying produces drift that may
bring about the same inconvenience, discomfort and alleged health risks to the community and to the
environment.

Aside from its being underinclusive, the ordinance also tends to be "overinclusive" because its impending
implementation will affecet groups that have no relation to the accomplishment of the legislative purpose.
Its implementation will unnecesesarily impose a burden on a wider range of individuals than those included
in the intended class based on the purpose of the law.

The imposition of the ban is too broad because the ordinance applies irrespective of the substance to be
aerially applied and irrespective of the agricultural activity to be conducted. The respondents admit that
they aerially treate their plantations not only with pesticides but also vitamins and other substances. The
imposition of the ban against aerial spraying of substances other than fungicides and regardless of the
agricultural activity being performed. The imposition of the ban is too broad because the ordinance applies
irrespective of the substance to be aerially applied and irrespective of the agricultural activity to be
conducted.

Evidently, the ordinance discriminates against large farm holdings that are the only ideal venues for the
investment of machineries and equipment capable of aerial spraying. It effectively denies the affected
individuals the technology aimed at efficient and cost-effective operations and cultivation not only of
banana but of other crops as well. The prohibition against aerial spraying will seriously hamper the
operations of the banana plantations that depend on aerial technology to arrest the spread of the Black
Sigatoka disease and other menaces that threaten their production and harvest.

The discriminatory character of the ordinance makes it oppressive and unreasonable in light of the existence
and availability of more permissible and practical alternatives that will not overburden the respondents and
those dependent on their operations as well as those who stand to be affected by the ordinance.

EQUAL PROTECTION

All persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and
responsibilities imposed. It guarantees equality, not identity of rights. It does not forbid discrimination as
to persons and things that are different. What it forbids are distinctions based on impermissible criteria
unrelated to a proper legislative purpose, or class or discriminatory legislation, which discriminates against
some and favors others when both are similarly situated.

Requisites for Valid Classification

1. Rest on substantial distinctions;

2. Must be germane to the purpose of the law;
3. Not be limited to existing conditions only; and
4. Apply equally to all members of the same class. (People v. Cayat, GR. No. L-45987, May 5, 1939)

Garcia v. Drilon, G.R. No. 79267, June 25, 2013

R.A. 9262 rests on substantial distinction. There is an unequal power relationship between women and men
and the fact that women are more likely than men to be victims of violence and the widespread gender bias
and prejudice against women all make for real differences justifying the classification under the law. The
classification is germane to the purpose of the law. The distinction between men and women is germane to
the purpose of R.A. 9262, which is to address violence committed against women and children.

Sec. 5.23 of the Reproductive Health Law-IRR provides that skilled health professional such as provincial,
city or municipal health officers, chiefs or hospital, head nurses, supervising midwives cannot be considered
as conscientious objectors. Is this provision unconstitutional?

(Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014)

YES. This is discriminatory and violative of the equal protection clause. The conscientious objection clause
should be equally protective of the religious belief of public health officers. There is no perceptible
distinction why they should not be considered exempt from the mandates of the law. The protection
accorded to other conscientious objectors should equally apply to all medical practitioners without
distinction whether they belong to the public or private sector. After all, the freedom to believe is intrinsic
in every individual and the protectiverobe that guarantees its free exercise is not taken off even if one
acquires employment in the government.

Central Bank Employees Association, Inc., v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 148208, December 15,
2004

In the field of equal protection, the guarantee that "no person shall be denied the equal protection of the
laws" includes the prohibition against enacting laws that allow invidious discrimination, directly or
indirectly. If a law has the effect of denying the equal protection of the law, or permits such denial, it is
unconstitutional.

Searches and Seizures

Rights of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant
of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing
the place to be searched and persons of things to be seized.

REQUISITES FOR A VALID SEARCH WARRANT

1. It must be issued upon determination of probable cause;
2. The probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person;
3. In the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the
complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and
4. The warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons and things to be seized.

WARRANT OF ARREST

In connection with the issuance of a warrant of arrest, however, the word "personally" after the word
determined does not necessarily mean that the judge should examine the complainant and his witnesses
personally or face to face before issuing the warrant of arrest but the exclusive responsibility on the part of
said judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. As such, there in no need to examine the
complainant and his witnesses face to face. It is sufficient if the judge is convinced of the...

WHEN WARRANT OF ARREST MAY ISSUE

Within 10 days from the filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate the
resolution of the prosecutor. In conducting the resolution of the prosecutor. In conducting the evaluation of
the resolution, the judge shall look into supporting evidence (Sec. 5, Rule 112).

General warrants

Warrants of broad and general characterizations or sweeping descriptions which will authorize police
officers to undertake a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles
relating to an offense.

Purpose of particularity of description in search warrants

1. Readily identify the properties to be seized and thus prevent the peace officers from seizing the wrong
items; and
2. Leave peace officers with no discretion regarding the articles to be seized and thus prevent unreasonable
searches and seizures. (Bache and Co. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA SCRA 823, February 27, 1971)

Nature of search warrant proceedings

Neither a criminal action nor a commencement of a prosecution. It is solely for the possession of personal
property. (United Laboratories, Inc. v. Isip, G.R. No. 163858, June 28, 2005)

Probable cause - Search Warrant

Probable cause, as a condition for the issuance of a search warrant, is such reasons supported by facts and
circumstances as will warrant a cautious man to believe that his action and the means taken in prosecuting
it are legally just and proper. It requires facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man
to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with that offense
are in the place to be searched. (HPS Software and Communications Corp. and Hyman Yap v. PLDT, G.R.
No. 170217, December 10, 2012)

Personal knowledge

Facts discovered during surveillance - on the basis of information and evidence provided by petitioners -
constitute personal knowledge which could form the basis for the issuance of a search warrant. (Petron LPG
Dealers Association v. Ang, G.R. no. 199371, February 3, 2016)

Initial hearsay information

Initial hearsay information or tips rom confidential informants could very well serve as basis for the
issuance of a search warrant, if followed up personally by the recipient and validated. (Microsoft
Corporation v. Samir Farajallah, G.R. No. 205800, September 10, 2014)

Witness to Search

Section 8, Rule 126. Search of house, room, or premises to be made in presence of two witnesses, provides
that a search under the strength of a warrant is required to be witnessed by the lawful occupant of the
premises sought to be searched. It must be stressed that it is only upon their absence that their presence may
be replaces by two persons of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.

Absence of the required witnesses

The absence of the required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However,
a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required
witnesses must therefore be adduced.

In this case, while the inventory and photography of the seized items were made in the presence of Feriol
(offender) and an elected public official, the records do not show that the...

Issues on Jurisdiction of Issuing Court

May the Municipal Trial Court of Gattaran, Cagayan issue a search warrant for illegal possession of
prohibited drugs which is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court to try and
decide?

Yes. This is so because Section, Art. III of the Constitution allows a "judge" to issue a search warrant
without any distinction or qualification. (People vs. Judge Edmar Castillo, Jr., Presiding Judge Aparri
Cagayan, G.R. No. 204419, November 07, 2016)

May the Municipal Trial Court of Gattaran, Cagayan issue a search warrant for illegal possession of
prohibited drugs in Aparri, Cagayan, which is outside its territorial jurisdiction?

Yes, since the Municipality of Gattaran, Cagayan and Aparri, Cagayan belong to the same Judicial Region.

Search of Pirated Tapes

In the seizure of alleged pirated tapes, what must the applicant submit to the court in order that the search
warrant to be issued shall be valid?

In Century Fox vs. CA, 164 SCRA 655 and COLUMBIA PICTURES VS. CA, 261 SCRA 144, it was held
that the master copy of the allegedly pirated tape should be presented before the judge in order to convince
him of the existence of probable cause.

WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Instances of a valid warrantless search

1. Check Point
2. Search is an incident to a valid arrest;
3. Search of passengers made in airports;
4. When things seized are within plain view of a searching party (Plain Vies Doctrine);
5. Stop and frisk;
6. When there is a valid express waiver made voluntarily and intelligently

Plain View Doctrine

Under the plain view doctine, objects falling in the "plain view" of an officer, who has a right to be in the
position to have that view, are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. It applies when the
following requisites concur:
1. The law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a
position from which he can view a particular area;
2. The discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and
3. it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband
or otherwise subject to seizure.

Stop-and-frisk search

Limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons. Probable cause is not required but a genuine reason
must exist in light of a police officer’s experience and surrounding conditions to warrant the belief that the
person detained has weapons concealed. (Malacat v. CA, G.R. No. 123595, December 12, 1997)

Checkpoints

Searches conducted in checkpoints are lawful, provided the checkpoint complies with the following
requisites: 1. The establishment of checkpoint must be pronounced; 2. It must be stationary, not roaming;
and 3. The search must be limited to visual search and must not be an intrusive search.

Checkpoints –Extensive Search

Motorists and their vehicles passing through checkpoints may also be stopped and extensively searched
While, as a rule, motorists and their vehicles passing through checkpoints may only be subjected to a routine
inspection, vehicles may be stopped and extensively searched when there is probable cause which justifies
a reasonable belief among those at the checkpoints that either the motorist is a law offender or the contents
of the vehicle are or have been instruments of some offense.

Search Incidental to Arrest

The scope of the warrantless search is not without limitations. A valid arrest allows the seizure of evidence
or dangerous weapons either on the person of the one arrested or within the area of his immediate control.
The purpose of the exception is to protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the person arrested,
who might be armed with a concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying evidence within
reach.

If the accused was validly arrested without warrant inside a night club for illegal possession of firearm, may
the arresting officers validly search his car parked several meters from the place of arrest based on “search
incidental to a valid arrest”?

Where the gun tucked in a person’s waist is plainly visible to the police, no search warrant is necessary and
in the absence of any license for said firearm, he may be arrested at once as he is in effect committing a
crime in the presence of the police officers. No warrant is necessary in such a situation, it being one of the
recognized exceptions under the Rules. As a consequence of the accused’s valid warrantless arrest inside
the nightclub, he may be lawfully searched for dangerous weapons or anything

In fact , the subsequent discovery in his car (which was parked in a distant place from where the illegal
possession of firearm was committed [after he requested that he will bring his car to the Police Station after
his warrant less arrest --- with a policeman escorting him]), of a drug paraphernalia and shabu, CANNOT
BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN MADE DURING AN ILLEGAL SEARCH because of his consent , not due
to search incidental to a valid arrest .

CONSENTED SEARCH

In order that there is a valid consent to a warrantless search, the consent must come from the person directly
affected by said warrantless search.
Is an unlicensed firearm seized in the house of the accused without warrant by the military authorities, after
they were given consent by the said owner of the house for them to search for rebel soldiers, admissible in
evidence?

No. In VEROY VS. LAYAGUE, 210 SCRA 97, the Supreme Court held that the owner of the house
allowed the policemen to enter his house because they will be searching for rebel soldiers but when inside
the house, they instead seized an unlicensed firearm. As such, there was no consent to search for firearms
and as a consequence, the firearm is not admissible as evidence.