POLICE POWER

CASE ISSUE RULING ANALYSIS

G.R. No. 175356 Whether the legally The 20% discount is In the exercise of
mandated 20% intended to improve police power, a
senior citizen the welfare of senior property right is
discount is an citizens who, at their impaired by
exercise of police age, are less likely to regulation, or the
power or eminent be gainfully use of property is
domain. employed, more merely
prone to illnesses prohibited,
and other disabilities, regulated or
and, thus, in need of restricted to
subsidy in promote public
purchasing basic welfare. In such
commodities. It cases, there is no
serves to honor compensable
senior citizens who taking, hence,
presumably spent payment of just
their lives on compensation is
contributing to the not required.
development and
progress of
the nation. The
subject regulation
may be said to be
similar to, but with
substantial
distinctions from,
price control or rate
of return on
investment control
laws which are
traditionally
regarded as police
power measures.
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
CASE ISSUE RULING ANALYSIS
G.R. No. 135087 Whether or not the The City of In the present
City of Mandaluyong may case, the City of
Mandaluyong may enact the necessary Mandaluyong
validly and legally ordinance and seeks to exercise
exercise its power institute the power of
of eminent domain expropriation eminent domain
by implementing a proceedings for as over petitioners’
resolution pursuant long as it has property by
to Art. 36, Rule VI complied with all means of a
of the IRR of RA other legal resolution, in
No. 7160. requirements. The contravention of
basis for the exercise the first requisite.
power of eminent The law in this
domain by local case is clear and
government unit is free from
Section 19 of R.A. No. ambiguity.
7160. Despite the Section 19 of the
existence of Code requires an
legislative grant, it is ordinance, not a
still the duty of the resolution, for the
courts to determine exercise of the
whether the power of power of eminent
eminent domain is domain.
being exercised in Therefore, an
accordance with the ordinance
delegating law. The promulgated by
courts have the the local
obligation to legislative body
determine whether authorizing its
the local chief
expropriation procee executive to
dings is over exercise the
a particular power of eminent
private property, is domain is
exercised for necessary prior to
public use, there is the filing by the
 payment of just comp latter of the
ensation and there w complaint with
as a valid offer made  the proper court,
to the owner of the pr and not only after
operty but was not the court has
accepted. determined the
amount of just
compensation to
which the
defendant is
entitled.

G.R. No. 127820 Whether or Not an  Under Section 19, of An ordinance is a

LGU can exercise its  the present Local Gov law, but a
power of eminent ernment Code (RA71 resolution is
domain pursuant to  60), it is stated as merely a
a resolution by its the first requisite that declaration of the
law-making body. LGUs can exercise its sentiment or
power of eminent opinion of a law-
domain if there is an making body on
ordinance enacted by specific matter.
its legislative body An ordinance
enabling the possesses a
municipal chief general and
executive. A permanent
resolution is not an character, but a
ordinance, the former resolution is
is only an opinion of temporary in
a law-making body, nature.
the latter is a law. The
case cited by
Petitioner involves
BP 337, which was
the previous
Local Government
Code, which
is obviously
no longer in effect.
RA 7160prevails over
 the Implementing
Rules, the former
being the law itself
and the latter only an
administrative rule
which cannot amend
the former.

G.R. No. 221366 Whether or not the The petition is bereft It is equally
CA erred in finding Of merit. In resolving important to
that petitioner expropriation cases, acknowledge that
failed to prove that this Court has always local government
it complied with been reminded that units do not have
pertinent laws in the exercise of the an unbridled
the exercise of its power of authority to
power eminent domain exercise such
of eminent domain. necessarily involves a formidable
derogation of power in seeking
fundamental right. solutions to such
The exercise of problem. Again,
the power of eminent such formidable
domain drastically power greatly
affects a landowner's affects a citizen's
right to private fundamental
property, which is as right to property,
much a hence, there is a
constitutionally- need to strictly
protected right comply with the
necessary for the conditions and
preservation and restrictions set
enhancement of forth in the
personal dignity and Constitution and
intimately connected pertinent laws to
with the rights to life assure that every
and liberty. right is protected
Therefore, the and every
exercise of mandate is
such power must properly
undergo discharged.
 painstaking scrutiny.

POWER OF TAXATION
CASE ISSUE RULING ANALYSIS
G.R. No. 166006 Whether the The imposition of the The power of
imposition of the levy was an exercise taxation is the
levy was an exercise by the State of its power to levy taxes
by the State of its taxation power. as to be used for
taxation power. While it is true that public purpose. The
the power of taxation power of taxation,
can be used as an is circumscribed by
implement of police inherent and
power, the primary constitutional
purpose of the levy is limitations. In this
revenue generation. case, it is for
If the purpose is purpose of
primarily revenue, or revenue.  But it is a
if revenue is, at least, robbery for the
one of the real and State to tax the
substantial purposes, citizen and use the
then the exaction is funds generation
properly called a tax for a private
purpose.  Public
purpose does NOT
only pertain to
those purpose
which are
traditionally
viewed as
essentially
governmental
function such as 
building roads and
delivery of basic
services, but also
includes those
 purposes designed
to promote social
justice.

G.R. No. 204429 Whether the fees The fees are not taxes The fees in
imposed in because the fees Ordinance No. 18
Ordinance No. 18 imposed in are not impositions
taxes. Ordinance No. 18 are on the building or
primarily regulatory structure itself;
in nature, and not rather, they are
primarily revenue- impositions on the
raising. The primary activity subject of
purpose of Ordinance government
No. 18 is to regulate regulation, such as
the "placing, the installation and
stringing, attaching, construction of the
installing, repair and structures. Since the
construction of all gas main purpose of
mains, electric, Ordinance No. 18 is
telegraph and to regulate certain
telephone wires, construction
conduits, meters activities of the
and other apparatus" identified special
listed therein, which projects, which
included Smart’s included "cell sites"
telecommunications or
tower. Clearly, the telecommunications
purpose of the towers, the fees
assailed Ordinance is imposed in
to regulate the Ordinance No. 18
enumerated activities are primarily
particularly related to regulatory in
the construction and nature, and not
maintenance of primarily revenue-
various raising. While the
structures. Thus, the fees may contribute
fees imposed in to the revenues of
Ordinance No. 18 the Municipality,
 are not taxes. this effect is merely
incidental.

G.R. No. 187631 Whether LGU is The power to tax "is Although the
empowered under an attribute of power to tax is
the LGC to impose sovereignty," and as inherent in the
business taxes on such, inheres in the State, the same is
persons or entities State. Such, however, not true for local
engaged in the is not true for government units
business of provinces, cities, (LGUs) because
manufacturing and municipalities and although the
distribution of barangays as they are mandate to impose
petroleum products. not the sovereign; taxes granted to
rather, there are mere LGUs is categorical
"territorial and and long
political subdivisions established in the
of the Republic of the 1987 Philippine
Philippines. It is Constitution, the
settled that a same is not all
municipal encompassing as it
corporation unlike a is subject to
sovereign state is limitations as
clothed with no explicitly stated in
inherent power of Section 5, Article X
taxation. of the 1987
Constitution. Each
local government
unit shall have the
power to create its
own sources of
revenues and to
levy taxes, fees, and
charges subject to
such guidelines and
limitations as the
Congress may
provide, consistent
with the basic
 policy of local
autonomy. Such
taxes, fees, and
charges shall accrue
exclusively to the
local governments.

G.R. No. 166102 Whether MERALCO MERALCO is a The exercise of

is liable for real public utility the power of
property tax on its engaged in electric taxation constitutes
transformers, electric distribution, and its a deprivation of
posts (or poles), transformers, electric property under the
transmission lines, posts, transmission due process clause,
insulators, and lines, insulators, and and the taxpayer’s
electric meters, electric meters right to due process
beginning 1992. constitute the is violated when
physical facilities arbitrary or
through which oppressive methods
MERALCO delivers are used in
electricity to its assessing and
consumers. Each may collecting taxes.
be considered as one Thus, while “taxes
or more of the are the lifeblood of
following: a the government,”
“machine,” the power to tax
“equipment,” has its limits, in
“contrivance,” spite of all its
“instrument,” plenitude. Even as
“appliance,” we concede the
“apparatus,” or inevitability and
“installation.” The tax indispensability of
law does not provide taxation, it is a
for a definition of real requirement in all
property; but Article democratic regimes
415 of the Civil Code that it be exercised
does. The Court finds reasonably and in
that the transformers, accordance with the
electric posts, prescribed
transmission lines, procedure.
 insulators, and
electric meters of
MERALCO are no
longer exempted
from real property
tax and may qualify
as “machinery”
subject to real
property tax under
the Local
Government Code.

G.R. No. L- Whether or not The use of the second Constitution,

39086 the lot and building floor of the main expressly grants
in question are building for exemption from
used exclusively for residential purposes realty taxes for
educational purpose of the Director and cemeteries,
s and thus exempted his family, may find churches and
from paying taxes. justification under parsonages or
the concept of convents
incidental use, which appurtenant
is complimentary to thereto, and all
the main or primary lands, buildings,
purpose and improvements
 –  used exclusively for
educational. The religious, charitable
lease of the first floor, or educational
however, by a purposes.
commercial Reasonable
establishment cannot emphasis has
be considered always been made
incidental to the that the exemption
purpose of education. extends to facilities
Under the 1935 which are
Constitution, the trial incidental to and
court correctly reasonably
arrived at the necessary for the
conclusion that the accomplishment of
school building as the main purposes.
well as the lot where The use of the
it is built, should be school building or
taxed, not because lot for commercial
the second floor of purposes is neither
the same is being contemplated
used by the Director bylaw, nor by
and his family for jurisprudence. In
residential purposes, the case at bar, the
but because the first lease of the first
floor thereof is being floor of the building
used for to the Northern
commercial purposes Marketing
. Corporation cannot
by any stretchof the
imagination be
considered
incidental to the
purpose of
education.The test
of exemption from
taxation is the use
of the property for
purposes
mentioned in the
Constitution.