Republic v. MERALCO (G.R. No.

 141314)
Facts:

MERALCO filed with petitioner ERB an application for the revision of its rate schedules
to reflect an average increase in its distribution charge. ERB granted a provisional
increase subject to the condition that should the COA thru its audit report find
MERALCO is entitled to a lesser increase, all excess amounts collected from the latter’s
customers shall either be refunded to them or correspondingly credited in their favor.
The COA report found that MERALCO is entitled to a lesser increase, thus ERB ordered
the refund or crediting of the excess amounts. On appeal, the CA set aside the ERB
decision. MRs were denied.

Issue:

Whether or not the regulation of ERB as to the adjustment of rates of MERALCO is

valid.

Ruling: YES.

 The regulation of rates to be charged by public utilities is founded upon the police
powers of the State and statutes prescribing rules for the control and regulation of public
utilities are a valid exercise thereof. When private property is used for a public purpose
and is affected with public interest, it ceases to be juris privati only and becomes subject
to regulation. The regulation is to promote the common good. Submission to regulation
may be withdrawn by the owner by discontinuing use; but as long as use of the property
is continued, the same is subject to public regulation.

In regulating rates charged by public utilities, the State protects the public against
arbitrary and excessive rates while maintaining the efficiency and quality of services
rendered. However, the power to regulate rates does not give the State the right to
prescribe rates which are so low as to deprive the public utility of a reasonable return on
investment. Thus, the rates prescribed by the State must be one that yields a fair return
on the public utility upon the value of the property performing the service and one that is
reasonable to the public for the services rendered. The fixing of just and reasonable
rates involves a balancing of the investor and the consumer interests.

ICHONG v. HERNANDEZ

101 PHIL 115

FACTS:
Petitioner, also in behalf of other alien residents’ corporations and partnerships,
brought this action to obtain a judicial declaration that RA 1180 is unconstitutional.
Petitioner contends, among others, that said act violates the equal protection of
laws and that it violates the treaty of the Philippines with China. Solicitor General
contends that the act was a valid exercise of the police power and that not a single
treaty was infringed by said act.

ISSUE:
Whether or not RA 1180 violates the equal protection of laws

HELD:
The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor and individual or class
privilege, as well as hostile discrimination on the oppression of inequality. The real
question at hand is whether or not the exclusion of the future aliens for the retail
trade unreasonable. The equal protection clause “is not infringed by a specified
class if it applies to all persons within such class and reasonable grounds exist for
making a distinction between those who fall within such class and those who do
not”. Aliens are under no special constitutional protection which forbids a
classification otherwise justified simply because the limitation of the class falls
along the lines of nationality. The difference in status between citizens and aliens
constitute a basis for reasonable classification in the exercise of police power.

Manosca v. Court of Appeals

GR No. 106440, January 29, 1996
FACTS:

Petitioners inherited a piece of land located at P. Burgos Street, Calzada, Taguig. Metro Manila,
with an area of about four hundred ninety-two (492) square meters. Manosca v. Court of Appeals

The parcel has been the birthsite of Felix Y. Manalo, the founder of the Iglesia Ni Cristo.
Because of that, the Naitional Historical Institute (NHI) passed a resolution declaring  the land to
be a national historical landmark which was then approved by the Minister of Education, Culture
and Sports.

Regional Trial Court: The Republic, through the OSG instituted a complaint for expropriation
alleging that the land is a public purpose. RTC then ordered the Republic to take over the
property after fixing the provisional market and assessed value of the property. Manosca v. Court
of Appeals
Court of Appeals: The petition for certiorari and prohibition was dismissed.
Read: Belen v. Court of Appeals

ISSUE:

Whether or not the "public use" requirement of Eminent Domain is extant in the attempted
expropriation by the Republic of a 492-square-meter parcel of land so declared by the National
Historical Institute ("NHI") as a national historical landmark. Manosca v. Court of Appeals

HELD:

Yes. 

Eminent domain, also often referred to as expropriation and, with less frequency, as
condemnation, is, like police power and taxation, an inherent power of sovereignty. It need not
be clothed with any constitutional gear to exist; instead, provisions in our Constitution on the
subject are meant more to regulate, rather than to grant, the exercise of the power. Manosca v.
Court of Appeals

Eminent domain is generally so described as "the highest and the most exact idea of property
remaining in the government" that may be acquired for some public purpose through a method in
the nature of a forced purchase by the State.

Republic v. PLDT
GR No. L-1884;  January 27, 1969

FACTS:

The Bureau of Telecommunications set up its own Government Telephone System

by utilizing its own appropriation and equipment and by renting trunk lines of the
PLDT to enable government officers to call private parties. One of the rules of PLDT,
however, is the prohibition on the Bureau’s public use of the service furnished only
for the private use of said Bureau. The Bureau has extended its services to the
general public since its inception (also using the lines of PLDT). PLDT contends that
said bureau was violating the conditions under which their Private Branch Exchange
is inter-connected with the PLDT’s facilities and, after giving an ultimatum, PLDT
disconnected the trunk lines rented by the Bureau, effectively isolating the
Philippines from the rest of the world (except the United States). Petitioner thus
filed for judgment commanding PLDT to execute a contract with plaintiff.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the PLDT may be forced to execute a contract with petitioner

HELD:

The parties cannot be coerced to enter into a contract where no agreement is had
between them. While the Republic may not compel the PLDT to celebrate a contract
with it, the Republic may, in the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent
domain, require the telephone company to permit interconnection of the
government telephone system and that of the PLDT subject to just compensation.
The use of PLDT’s lines and services are subjected to a burden to the respondent
for the public use and benefit, thus, they constitute properties over which the
power of eminent domain may be exercised.

Sison vs Ancheta (1984) 130 SCRA 654

February 15, 2013 markerwins Tax Law

Facts: Batas Pambansa 135 was enacted. Sison, as taxpayer, alleged that its provision
(Section 1) unduly discriminated against him by the imposition of higher rates upon his
income as a professional, that it amounts to class legislation, and that it transgresses
against the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution as well as the
rule requiring uniformity in taxation.

Issue: Whether BP 135 violates the due process and equal protection clauses, and the
rule on uniformity in taxation.

Held: There is a need for proof of such persuasive character as would lead to a

conclusion that there was a violation of the due process and equal protection clauses.
Absent such showing, the presumption of validity must prevail. Equality and uniformity
in taxation means that all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class shall be
taxed at the same rate. The taxing power has the authority to make reasonable and
natural classifications for purposes of taxation. Where the differentitation conforms to
the practical dictates of justice and equity, similar to the standards of equal protection, it
is not discriminatory within the meaning of the clause and is therefore uniform.
Taxpayers may be classified  into different categories, such as recipients of
compensation income as against professionals. Recipients of compensation income are
not entitled to make deductions for income tax purposes as there is no practically no
overhead expense, while professionals and businessmen have no uniform costs or
expenses necessaryh to produce their income. There is ample justification to adopt the
gross system of income taxation to compensation income, while continuing the system
of net income taxation as regards professional and business income.
 Chavez vs PCGG
G.R. No. 130716.  December 9, 1998
Facts:  Petitioner, invoking his constitutional right to information and the correlative duty of
the state to disclose publicly all its transactions involving the national interest, demands that
respondents make public any and all negotiations and agreements pertaining to PCGG’s
task of recovering the Marcoses’ ill-gotten wealth.  He claims that any compromise on the
alleged billions of ill-gotten wealth involves an issue of “paramount public interest,” since it
has a “debilitating effect on the country’s economy” that would be greatly prejudicial to the
national interest of the Filipino people.  Hence, the people in general have a right to know
the transactions or deals being contrived and effected by the government.
Respondents, on the other hand, do not deny forging a compromise agreement with the
Marcos heirs.  They claim, though, that petitioner’s action is premature, because there is no
showing that he has asked the PCGG to disclose the negotiations and the
Agreements.  And even if he has, PCGG may not yet be compelled to make any disclosure,
since the proposed terms and conditions of the Agreements have not become effective and
binding.

Issues: Whether the constitutional right to information may prosper against respondents’

argument that the “should be disclosed” proposed terms and conditions of the Agreements
are not yet effective and binding
Held: Yes.
Considering the intent of the framers of the Constitution, we believe that it is incumbent upon
the PCGG and its officers, as well as other government representatives, to disclose sufficient
public information on any proposed settlement they have decided to take up with the ostensible
owners and holders of ill-gotten wealth, subject to some of the following recognized
restrictions:  (1) national security matters and intelligence information, (2) trade secrets and
banking transactions, (3) criminal matters, and (4) other confidential information.