General Provisions Power of Eminent Domain
Under the Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy, if
a law or statute that violates the constitution, the
law shall be invalid, thus null and void.
Requisites of a Judicial review
1. Actual case or controversy - the party must
show that the assailed act had a direct
adverse effect on them. An aspect of the
case-or-controversy requirement is the
requisite of ripeness which is generally
treated in terms of actual specific injury
sustained by the petitioner because of a law
or governmental act.
2. Locus standi or legal standing - A proper
party is one who has sustained or is in
immediate danger of sustaining an injury as
a result of a law or a governmental act
complained of.
3. The question was raised at the earliest
opportunity
4. The issue of constitutionality must be the
lis mota of the case.
Police Power of the State
The two tests for valid delegation of a police
measure as a follows, namely: (1) the interests of
the public generally, as distinguished from those of
a particular class, requires the interference of the
state, and (2) the means employed are reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of the object
sought and not oppressive upon individuals.
Relevant Jurisprudence:
Ortigas & Co. v CA provides that a law
enacted in the exercise of police power of
the State COULD be given retroactive effect
and may reasonably impair contracts or
treaties. Police Power prevails over
contracts and is applicable even those
contracts that are already existing.
There are two Requisites for expropriating lands,
namely: (1) the taking must be for public use, (2)
the taking is a necessity for the purpose to be
carried out, and (3) there must be just
compensation.
There are two stages of expropriation, namely: (1)
determination of the expropriator’s authority to
expropriate and the propriety of its exercise, and
(2) the determination of the just compensation.
Relevant Jurisprudence:
Heirs of Juancho Ardona v Reyes – Broader
concept of public use now also includes
whatever may be beneficial and contributes
to the general welfare and prosperity of the
public.
TELEBAP v Comelec – radio and television
frequencies are a franchise given by the
State. Radio and TV stations do not own the
frequencies but they are merely given
privilege of using them. The exercise of the
privilege may reasonably be burdened with
the performance by the said stations of
some form of public service.
JM Tuason v CA – When Congress directly
expropriate a land, the 2nd requisite which
question the necessity for the exercise of
eminent domain are essentially political in
character and cannot be subject to a judicial
review.
People v Fajardo – If an ordinance or
statute permanently restricts the owner of
the land of his usage of his property, then it
is tantamount to taking of the owner’s land
without just compensation
US v Causby - The measure of the value of
the property taken is the owner’s loss, and
not the taker’s gain.
More Electric Power Corp. v Panay Electric
– When the power of eminent domain is
exercised by an agent of the State
(delegated by Congress), and by means of
expropriating real property, further
limitations are imposed by law. They are:
(1) A valid delegation to state’s agent to
exercise the power of eminent domain, and
(2) An identified public use, purpose, or
welfare for which expropriation is
exercised.
Republc v Castellvi – the two essential
elements for there to be a taking of private
property under the power of eminent
domain are namely: (1) the entrance and
occupation by the taker must be for a
permanent or indefinite period, and (2) that
in devoting the property to public use, the
landowner was ousted and deprived of the
property’s beneficial use.
- Under a lease contract,
the stay is considered
temporary and therefore
not a permanent period
of occupation.
EPZA v Dulay – the final determination for
just compensation in cases concerning the
power of eminent domain is a judicial
function.
- The legislative and
executive bodies may
make an initial
determination of just
compensation as long as
its final determination is
vested to the judicial
courts.
Landbank of the Philippines v CA – The title
of the expropriated property shall pass
from the owner to the expropriator only
upon full payment of Just compensation.
Full payment of just compensation must be
to the point where the former landowner
can now appropriate the payment
deposited in their trust account.
Republic v Lim – when the expropriator
fails to pay (for 50 years) the just
compensation after the courts ordered
them to pay, the landowner shall have the
right of recovery of possession.
MIAA v Rodriguez – the payment for
damages due to not paying just
compensation is not by way of back rentals
but in the form of interest from the date
there was an exercise of eminent domain.
Sec. of DPWH v Sps. Tecson – the principal
criterion to determine just compensation is
either from the nature and character of the
land at the time of the taking or the filing of
the complaint, whichever comes first.
De Knecht v CA – A claim of ownership
must be based on juridical titles. The
"owner" when employed in statutes
relating to eminent domain, refers to all
those who have lawful interest in the
property to be condemned, including a
mortgagee, a lessee, and a vendee in
possession under an executory contract.
Fery v. Municipality of Cabanatuan: When
land has been acquired for public use in fee
simple unconditionally (a term that refers
to real estate or land ownership), either by
the exercise of eminent domain or by
purchase, the former owner retains no
rights in the land, and the public use may
be abandoned, or the land may be devoted
to a different use, without any impairment
of the estate or title acquired, or any
reversion to the former owner.
MCIAA v Lozada – Former owners of the
condemned land, are entitled to
repurchase said land, provided that there
was a condition to repurchase said land
agreed in case of failure to use said land for
that particular purpose.
- While former owners are
obliged to reconvey an
expropriated lot, they
must return to the State
what they have received
as just compensation for
the expropriation of the
property plus legal
interest to comply with
their obligations
Republic v CA – Prescription cannot bar the
landowners to action for right to just
compensation.
Power of Taxation
Tax Exemptions: (1) Constitutional grant for
religious, charitable and educational
institutions [Sec. 28 (3), Art. VI]
Rules of taxation: uniformity and
equitability; progressivity
Jurisprudence:
Lung Center v. Quezon City - The test to
check if it is exempted from tax is whether
it exists to carry out its purpose recoganized
in the law as charitable or whether it is
maintained for gain, profit, or private
advantage. However, under PD 1823, real
property must be actually, directly, and
exclusively used for charitable purposes to
be exempt from real property taxes. In this
case, the lung center is a charitable
institution, yet portions of the center were
leased to private entities.
Due Process Clause
There are two aspects of due process, namely: (1)
substantive due process and (2) procedural due
process.
The two tests for substantive due process are,
namely: (1) the interests of the public generally, as
distinguished from those of a particular class,
requires the interference of the state, and (2) the
means employed are reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the object sought and not
oppressive upon individuals.
There are four requisites for judicial due process,
namely: (1) There must be an impartial court or
tribunal with judicial power to hear and determine
the matter before it; (2) jurisdiction must be
lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant
or over the property which is the subject of the
proceeding; (3) the defendant must be given an
opportunity to be heard(hearing), and (4)
judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.
Missing any of the requirements will render the
judgment of the case null and void from the
beginning
In administrative proceedings, the
requisites of procedural due process are
the following: (1) the right to a hearing, (2)
the tribunal must consider the evidence
presented, (3) the decision must have
something to support itself, (4) substantial
evidence, (5) the decision is redered on the
presented evidence, (6) the tribunal or body
must act on its own independent
consideration of the law and facts in the
controversy, (7) the board or body should
render its decision in a manner that the
parties in the proceeding know the issues
involved and the reason for the decision
rendered.
Jurisprudence:
Zambales Chromite v CA - The reviewing
officer and the person whose decision was
 being reviewed must not be one and the
same person. Thus, there would be a failure
to comply with the said requisite of
impartial and competent court due to that
person being biased.
Vinta Maritime v. NLRC - Before the
employee can be dismissed under Art. 282
of the Labor Code, it requires a written
notice containing a statement of the
cause/s of termination and giving said
employee ample opportunity to be heard
and to defend himself. The twin
requirements of notice and hearing
constitute the essential elements of due
process, and neither of these elements can
be eliminated without running afoul of the
constitutional guarantee.
Equal Protection Clause
For the classification to be valid, it must satisfy the
four requisites, namely: (1) must be reasonable,
which means it should be based on substantial
distinctions that make for real differences, (2) it
must be germane to the purpose of the law, (3) it
must not be limited to existing conditions only, and
(4) it must apply equally to all members of the
same class.
Jurisprudence:
As to 1st requisite:
Garcia v Drilon – Women vs men – VAWC’s
state protection against violence –unequal
power relationship, women are more likely
to be victims - Constitutional
Ichong v Hernandez – filipino citizen vs
aliens – nationalizing of businesses –
Constitutional
Dumlao v Comelec – Old blood(person,
who are 65 y.o and retired on that office,
are prohibited to run in that same office) vs
New blood – prohibition on running in
certain conditions - Constitutional
(debatable)
Ceniza v Cinekec – Highly urbanized city vs
Other cities – restriction to vote on the
province – Constitutional
Nunez v Sandiganbayan –
Sandiganbayan(only one chance for appeal)
vs Other courts(more chance) creation of
Sandiganbayan - Constitutional
PASEI v Drilon – Female overseas Domestic
workers vs all other Filipino workers –
temporary suspension of deployment of
OFW - Constitutional
DECS v San Diego – medical profession
NMAT 3-strike rule vs other profession with
no 3-strike rule - Constitutional
Tatad v Secretary – old players (imported
crude oil – cheaper) vs new players (refined
petroleum – more expensive) -
Unconstitutional
International School Alliance of Educators
v Quisumbing – Unequal salary local hires
vs foreign hires - Unconstitutional
As to 2nd requisite:
People v Cayat – non-christian tribes v
Christian tribes – prohibition of drinking
liquor – purpose of law is to prevent lawless
ness and crime since non-christian tribes
are not accustome to liquors –
Constitutional
Garcia v Drilon – Women vs men – VAWC’s
state protection against violence –unequal
power relationship, women are more likely
to be victims – to address violence
committed against women and children -
Constitutional
Dumlao v Comelec – Old blood(person,
who are 65 y.o and retired on that office,
are prohibited to run in that same office) vs
New blood – prohibition on running in
certain conditions - purpose of law is to
give opportunity for new blood to run the
state – Constitutional (debatable)
PASEI v Drilon – Female overseas Domestic
workers vs all other Filipino workers –
temporary suspension of deployment of
OFW – Purpose is to enhance protection for
said class.
Quinto v Comelec – Appointed officials vs
Elected officials – requirements to resign
before election – considered as
underinclusive – purpose is to equalize the
playing field before the election –
constitutional

Abakada Guro v Purisima – BIR and BOC vs

other gov’t officials – establishing of
rewards rewards and incentives - Purpose
of law is to optimize revenue generation
and collection - Constitutional

As to 3rd requisite:
Ormoc Sugar Co. v Treasurer – the
ordinance must not be singular and
exclusive as to exclude any subsequently
established and similar class. As it is now,
even if later a similar company is set up, it
cannot be subject to the tax because the
ordinance expressly points only to Ormoc
Sugar Company, Inc. as the entity to be
levied upon.