PACPACO, LOISE JUSTINE ANNE L.

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

1. Deprived of the ordinary use as the owner of the property.

Eminent domain.

2.
Nature of the property. Is the property intended for noxious purpose? Harmful? Or
intended for harmful purpose? Then exercise of police power.
Eminent domain, taken for public use. While in police power, iba-ban, will not be given
to public because it is noxious.
If deprived for public benefit, public welfare, paid for just compensation.

3A. Valid. Lawful subject. Lawful means. The burder imposed on owners of the drugstore
and common police power is price control. Where the govt regulates the profits that
establishments can make.

B.)
Your profit is not being taken. Because it is not sure that you will gain profit. No property
being taken. The right to property is only an inchoate right. No vested right to profit.

4. Ordinary use is deprived to the property owners. Taking of property without due
process.

5. No, the RTC should not dismiss the case.

Under the Constitution, there is no prescription in cases under eminent domain.

Moreover, the RTC has jurisdiction over cases of eminent domain. And lastly, there was
no valid exercise of police power.

Here, even if 43 years have lapsed from the time of taking of possession of the DPWH,
there can be no prescription because eminent domain cases and collection just
compensation against the government do not prescribe. Moreover, the RTC of Tarlac has
jurisdiction to hear and decide the case because the law gave jurisdiction to RTC. Lastly
the conversion of the farmland into an expressway is not a valid exercise of police power
because there was no lawful subject.

Action for just compensation is not barred by prescription or laches. Because in th first
place, the govt should file the case. The doctrine of state of immunity from suit cannot
be applied to perpetrate injustice.

6. No, the ordinance is not valid.

 In a similar case decided by the Supreme Court, the Honorable Court held that the
ordinance imposed by the LGU is an invalid exercise of police power. Police power is
defined as the restrictions imposed by the State for the general welfare of the public.

Here, mandating the property owners to move back from their existing perimeter is not
a lawful method. It imposes a burden to the property owners.
Unduly oppressive amounts to taking of property without due process.
Deprived of the ordinary use then there is taking

7. Yes, there was a viola

The income generating potential of the property must be compensated. Must be paid
from time of taking.

8. Yes the court should rule in favor of the expropriation of Mr. Mayaman’s property.

Under the Constitution

There is no genuine necessity.

9. Four common government actions that may constitute compensable taking are:
a. Taking of a private property in order to build infrastructures.
b. .
c. .
d. .
If the entire public is not using it, but if the public is being benefited directly, it is public
use. The reqt of public use in eminent domain is public benefit.

10. A.
Nbi -- fact finding. It is not in the position to deprive of life liberty or property.
Did not deny due process if did not given the notice.

B.
No, there was no denial of due process. Under the Constitution, during an administrative
proceeding, the right to a counsel cannot be invoked.

C.
No,
If the court decided a case without being heard. No violation.
1. Time is of the essence. Affording the person the opputunity to be heard may only
prevent the court from making interventions that will prevent the further violence
from women or children.
2. Once he is served the TPO, he is already served his complaint. The opportunity being
heard is given once the TPO is given.
 Administrative due process does not require trial and hearing. Rules in evidence does
not strictly apply.

11. No, the ordinance is not valid.

Under the Equal Protection Clause, there must be a substantial distinction between the
parties, the purpose must be germane to the law, it must not limit to the existing
conditions and lastly, it must be equally applied to same class.

Here, the ordinance imposing a higher garbage fee to owners of high rise condominium
rather than to the high-rise apartments is violative of the equal protection clause. Since,
both owners of the high-rise condominium and high-rise apartments are throwing their
garbage.

Substantial distinction- iba ka eh.

Violation. The garbage produced by condo owners, and the lot owners are practically the
same.

12. No, Mr. Busy’s right to due process was not violated.

In a similar case decided by the Supreme Court, it held that clamping of the tire of those
who are illegally parking their cars are not violative of the due process of the car owner.
Due process is having the opportunity to be notified and be heard. But in this case, how
can they be notified and If they were not present during the clamping process.

Hence, his right to due process was not violated.

No due process was not violated. Requiring due pricess at that point is superfluous. You
are not there at that time.

13. Yes the law is invalid.

Under the Constitution, police power restriction must be specific. It must not be broad
and shallow or else it will bring chaos.

Here,
Pagpinagbawal yung pag transfer ng carabao mapipigil ba yung pagkatay?
Not related to the purpose.
Without notice and hearing.

14. The owners of these businesses may invoke that the ordinance is too broad. The owners
may also assail on the ground that it violates their right to equal protection.
Ermita case.
 There was no lawful means. Not reasonably necessary to prevent prostitution. Pag
binan ba yung motel titigil ba yung prostitution. It can happen everywhere. It is unduly
oppressive because it amounts to taking without just compensation. because motel
beerhouses are legitimate businesses. Not all private individuals using motel are
engaging in illicit sex.

Equal protection clause: NO substantial distinction between hotel and motel in ermita.
And motel in sta mesa and motel in ermita. Discrimination of motels in ermita.
Classification—equal protection clause, does not prohibit discrimination. For as long as
the discrimination is based on requisites of equal protection clause. Invidious
classification.

15. Circular 100 is invalid because it violates the right to equal protection of those
mechanical board examiners. The law must also be applicable to other board examiners
not only to mechanical board examiners.

Unduly oppressive. Invalid exercise of delegated police power. The means employed is
unnecessary.

Mosqueda case:
Aerial spraying, banned illegal.
Truck, legal
Manual, legal

No substantial Distinction, not germane. Both groups can harm the people

The means employed, not germane to the purpose kasi sinama yung vitamin spraying.
Overinclusion, underinclusion. MASTER THAT CASE!!!!!