Salvanera, Jerwin S.

Midterm Exam - Constitutional Law 2

20-00155

1. Fundamental Powers of the State.

a. Police power - It was held in Gerochi vs. DOE that it is the power of the State to promote
public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property. It is also defined
in the same jurisprudence as the most pervasive, the least limitable, and the most demanding
of the three powers. It is the most essential , insistent, and the least limitable, extending as it
does “to all the great public needs.” It may be exercised as long as the activity or the
property sought to be regulated has some relevance to the public welfare. However, the
means employed must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and
not unduly oppressive upon individuals.

b. Eminent Domain - It is defined in Manila Memorial Park vs. Sec. of DSWD that eminent
domain is the inherent power of the State to take or appropriate private property for public
use. The Constitution requires that private property shall not be taken without due process of
law and payment of just compensation. There must be a necessity of taking the private
property for public use which must be of public character.

c. Taxation - It is the power by which the sovereign, through its law-making body, raises
revenue to defray the necessary expenses of the government. It is a way of apportioning the
costs of government among those who in some measure are privileged to enjoy its benefits
and must bear its burdens. Under the Lifeblood Doctrine, taxes are the lifeblood of the
government and their prompt and certain availability is an imperious need. Taxes are what
we pay for civilized society. Without it, the government would be paralyzed for lack of the
motive power to activate and operate it. Under jurisprudence, Taxation covers persons,
property, pr occupation to be taxed within the taxing jurisdiction. It is inherent in the power
to tax that a State be free to select the subject of taxation.

2. Hierarchy of Rights - In Salonga vs. Paño, it was held that freedom of expression ranks
higher in the hierarchy of constitutional rights than property rights. It was also held in
Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union that the free exercise of religious profession of
belief is superior to contract rights. Religious freedom, although not unlimited, is a
fundamental personal right and liberty, and has a preferred position in the hierarchy of
values.

3. No, the mall owners and operators cannot be validly be compelled to provide free parking to
their customers. It is beyond the scope of police power in requiring them to provide free
parking space to their customers. In OSG vs. Ayala Land, Inc., it was held that it is
unreasonably restricts the right to use property for business purposes and it amounts to
confiscation of property. Moreover, it also violates their right to use their property for
business purposes.

4. The equal protection clause is not violated by the law passed. It is based on substantial
distinctions. It was held in Garcia vs. Drilon that the unequal power relationship between
men and women, the greater likelihood for women than me. To be victims of violence, and
the widespread gender bias and prejudice against women all make for a real differences. In
this case, the grant of authority to the Barangay Chairman to issue a BPO is purely an
executive function pursuant to his duty as chairman to enforce the laws and ordinances in
maintaining public order.

 5. The law does not violate the non-establishment of religion. The use of the site temple will be
open to all religions and will not be limited to a particular one. Under the case of Ignacio vs.
De la Cruz, the temporary use of public property for religious purposes does not violate the
Constitution.

6. The law is constitutional. It is a valid exercise of police power of the State. It is defined
under jurisprudence that police power concerns government enactments which precisely
interfere with personal liberty of property in order to promote the common good and that the
means employed are necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly
oppressive upon individuals. In the given case, the rice shortage and the dearth of mining
engineers are valid concerns that affect the common good and this issue must be addressed
by the State. Since the law is limited to public science high schools, it is within the State’s
police power to require the graduates whose education it has subsidized to take up
agriculture or mining engineering. The law provides for a lawful means to achieve a lawful
objective hence, such may be considered to be a reasonable exercise of the State’s police
power.

7. The religious organization must submit the tapes to the MTRCB. Freedom of speech and
freedom of religion does not shield any religious organization against the regulation of the
government on its program over the television. The right to act on one’s religious belief is
not absolute and is subject to police power for the protection of the general welfare.
However, the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board cannot ban the tapes on
the ground that they attacked other religions. In Iglesia ni Cristo v. CA, the Supreme Court
held: "The respondent Board may disagree with the criticisms of other religions by petitioner
but that gives it no excuse to interdict such criticisms, however, unclean they may be. Under
our constitutional scheme, it is not the task of the State to favor any religion by protecting it
against an attack by another religion.” Moreover, the broadcasts do not give rise to a clear
and present danger of a substantive evil. It was also held in the same jurisprudence that
“Prior restraint on speech, including the religious speech, cannot be justified by hypothetical
fears but only by the showing of a substantive and imminent evil which has taken the reality
already on the ground.”

8. A. It was distinguished under Chavez vs. Gonzales the difference between content-based and
content-neutral restraint. Content-neutral regulation aims to regulate the time, place or
manner of the expressions in public places without any restraint on the context of the
expression. Content-based regulation is aimed at the message or idea of the expression,
distort public debate, have improper motivation, and are usually imposed because of fear of
how people will react to a particular speech.

B. The availability of the freedom park does not necessarily justify the denial of SM’s
application for a permit. It does imply that no permits are required for activities in freedom
parks. In Bayan Muna vs. Ermita, it was stated that under Batas Pambansa Bilang 880, the denial
may be justified only if there is a clear and convincing evidence that the public assembly will
create a clear and present danger to public order, public safety, public convenience, public morals
or public health.

9. The circular is valid. In Kelley vs. Johnson, all citizens had some sort of liberty interest
within the 14th amendment with respect to matters of personal appearance, the choice
reflected in the regulation that it was desirable for police officers to be similar in appearance,
whether based on a desire to make police readily recognizable to the public or to inculcate
esprit de corps, was rationally justified. In the given case, the circular is a rule regulating

 hairstyles and waistlines as part of the PNP regulations and the courts are not in the position
to weigh policy arguments about it.

10. The ordinance is valid exercise of the police power of the State. The right to privacy yields to
certain paramount rights to the public and defers to the exercise of police power. Based in
Social Justice Society vs. Dangerous Drug Board, the ordinance is not prohibiting the disco
pub owners and the hospitality girls from pursuing their calling or business but merely
regulating it. Based on Beltran vs. Secretary of Health, the ordinance is a valid exercise of
police power because its purpose is to safeguard public health.

11. The argument of CD is invalid. The equal protection of law is applicable to all persons who
are similarly situated. Substantial distinctions clearly exist between elective officials and
appointive officials. Thus in the given case, the automated election law does not violate the
equal protection clause.

12. The prohibition is null and void. According to the case of Adiong vs. COMELEC, the
regulation strikes at the freedom of an individual to express his preference and, by displaying
it in his car, to convince others to agree with him. A sticker may be furnished by a candidate
but once the car owner agrees to have it places on his private vehicle, the expression
becomes a statement by the owner, primarily his own and not of anybody else. More over,
the restriction as to where the decals and stickers should be posted is so broad that it
encompasses even the citizen’s private property, which in this case is a privately-owned
vehicle. It deprives an individual to his right to property without due process of law.

13. A. Yes. Under Reyes, et. al., vs. National Housing Authority, whatever may be beneficially
employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use. Moreover, in
Manosca vs. CA, it was held that as long as the public has right to use, whether exercised by
one or many members of the public, a “public advantage” or “public benefit” accrues
sufficient to constitute public use.

B. No, the just compensation requirement is nkot fulfilled. In NPC vs. Chiong, just compensation
is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken; the fair market value of the
property. Under the Rules of Court, the payment of just compensation is to be determined, as of
the date of the taking of the property of the filing of complaint, whichever came first. In the
given case, the value determined by the assessor is to be considered fair market value of the
property. It is closer value than the value stated in the owner’s tax declaration at the time the
property is taken.

14. Destilleria Felipe Segundo cannot claim that its constitutional rights were infringed. It was
held in Lloyd Corporation vs. Tanner that the guarantee of freedom of speech is a limitation
on state action and not on the action of private parties. The mass media are private
enterprises, and their refusal to accept any advertisement does not violate freedom of speech.
In this case, a private association formed by advertising companies for self-regulation was
the one who ordered that the advertisement be pulled out, because Destilleria did not comply
with the association’s ethical guidelines.

15. Yes. Freedom to believe is absolute as long as it is confined in the real. Of thought. However,
freedom to act on one’s belief id subject to regulations where the belief is translated into
external acts that affect the public welfare. In this case, although the sect affirmed Angelina’s
testimony and attested to the sincerity of Angelina and her partner in the profession of their
faith, she is still in violation of the law being charged with immorality conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of her service.

16. No he is not correct. The Supreme Court cited the US case of O’Connor vs. Ortega, which
ruled that government agencies, in their capacity as employers, rather than law enforcers,
could validly conduct search and seizures in the governmental workplace without meeting
the “probable cause” or warrant requirement for search and seizure. Moreover, he failed to
prove that he had an actual expectation of privacy either in his office or government-issued
computer which contained his personal files.