CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2, 6:30-9:30 PM, Tuesday

Assignment, March 30, 2021

1. Reference Case: Manila Memorial Park Inc. vs Secretary of DSWD (2013)

a. What is the justification for the grant of 20% discount to senior citizens for purchase of
covered goods and services from various establishments?
b. Prior to the above case, the court had rationalized in Commissioner of Internal Revenue
vs Central Luzon Drug Corporation that the 20% discount is an exercise of the power of
eminent domain for which just compensation has to be paid. In what form was the just
compensation given?
c. What is the difference between RA 7432 as implemented by BIR RR 02-94, and RA 9257
as implemented by BIR RR 4-2006 in regard to the treatment of the 20% discount
granted by covered establishments?
d. State the ruling of the court

2. Reference Case: Association of Small Landowners vs Secretary of Agrarian Reform

a. What is the background for the promulgation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law?
b. Is there just compensation for the land distributed to farmer-beneficiaries? How is
payment made? Does it comply with the requirement on payment of just compensation
in expropriation proceedings?
c. The court has characterized the expropriation involved as “revolutionary.” What
considerations were made by the court in arriving at its decision?
d. Discuss- “the power of eminent domain is used as an implement of the police power.”

3. Would the ruling in the case of Department of Education vs San Diego (1989) apply to a case
involving entry to the College of Law? Explain.

4. “Police power is dynamic and must move with the moving society.” Illustrate this truism through
a discussion of the case of White Light Corp. vs City of Manila in relation to similar cases earlier
decided by the court.

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX