CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II | FATHER SATURNINO URIOS UNIVERSITY

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

A. Introduction: Concept and Origin of the Bill of Rights

Bill of Rights
- A declaration and enumeration of a person’s rights and privileges which the
Constitution is designed to protect against violation by the government, or by
individual or groups of individual.
- A charter of liberties for the individual and a limitation upon the power of the State.

B. Classi cation

1. Civil Rights - a law which secures private individuals for the purpose of securing
enjoyment of their means and happiness.
2. Political Rights - the power to participate directly or indirectly in the establishment or
administration of the government.
3. Social and Economic Rights - intended to ensure the well-being and economic security
of an individual
4. Rights of the Accused - intended for the protection of a person accused of any crime.

C. Doctrine of Preferred Freedom (Hierarchy of Rights)

- The preferred position doctrine expresses a judicial standard based on a hierarchy of

constitutional rights so that some constitutional freedoms are entitled to greater protection
than others.

Social Justice Society, et al. vs. Atienza, Jr., GR No. 156052, February 13, 2008

The ordinance was intended to safeguard the rights to life, security and safety of all the
inhabitants of Manila and not just of a particular class. The depot is perceived as a
representation of western interests which means that it is a terrorist target. It therefore
became necessary to remove these terminals to dissipate the threat.

Essentially, the oil companies are fighting for their right to property. They allege that they
stand to lose billions of pesos if forced to relocate. However, based on the hierarchy of
constitutionally protected rights, the right to life enjoys precedence over the right to
property. The reason is obvious: life is irreplaceable, property is not. When the state
or LGU’s exercise of policy power clashes with a few individuals’ right to property, the
former should prevail.

Carlos Superdrug Corp. v. DSWD, et al., GR No. 166494, June 29, 2007

The law is a legitimate exercise of police power which has general welfare for its object. It
should be noted that when the conditions so demand, property rights must bow to primacy
of police power because property rights, although sheltered by due process, must yield to
general welfare.

Moreover, the right to property has a social dimension. While Article XIII of the
Constitution provides the precept for the protection of property, various laws and
jurisprudence continuously serve as a reminder that the right to property can be
relinquished upon the command of the State for the promotion of public good.

Use at your own risk.

Notes by: A. Cortez | AY 2021-2022 | 1
fi
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II | FATHER SATURNINO URIOS UNIVERSITY

PBM Employees Org. vs. PBM Co., Inc., 51 SCRA 189 (1973)

While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights over
property rights is recognized because these freedoms are “delicate and vulnerable, as well
as supremely precious in our society.” Property and property rights can be lost thru
prescription; but human rights are imprescriptible.

In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the right of free expression and of assembly occupy a
preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and
political institutions.

The demonstration held by petitioners was against the alleged abuses of some Pasig
policemen which was purely and completely and exercise of their freedom of expression in
general and of their right of assembly and petition for redress of grievances in particular
before appropriate governmental agency.

The pretension of their employer that it would suffer loss or damage by reason of the
absence of its employees is a plea for the preservation merely of property right. Such
apprehended loss or damage would not spell the difference between the life and death of
its owners or its management. The condition in which the employees found themselves
against the local police was a matter that vitally affected their right to individual existence
and their families. Material loss can be adequately compensated or repaired. The
debasement of the human being broken in morale and brutalized in spirit can never be
fully evaluated in monetary terms.

D. The Fundamental Powers of the State

1. Police Power
2. Eminent Domain
3. Taxation

Similarities, Di erences & Limitations

Similarities:
1. Inherent in the State and may be exercised by it without need of express
constitutional grant
2. Indispensable – the State cannot continue to be e ective unless it is able to exercise
them
3. They are methods by which the State interferes with private rights
4. Presupposes an equivalent compensation for the private rights interfered with
5. Exercised primarily by Legislature

Di erences:

Difference Police Power Eminent Domain Taxation

Regulates Liberty and Property Property Property

Government and some
Authority to Exercise Government Government
private entities
Property destroyed
because it is harmful
Purpose of taking Public use Public use
or intended for a
harmful purpose
Intangible altruistic Just compensation (full Protection and
Compensation feeling of contributing and fair equivalent of public
to the general welfare the property) improvement

Use at your own risk.

Notes by: A. Cortez | AY 2021-2022 | 2
ff
ff
ff
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II | FATHER SATURNINO URIOS UNIVERSITY

Limitations:

1. Bill of rights
2. Limitations and requirements of the Constitution

POLICE POWER

De nition, Scope & Basis.

Police Power – power of promoting the public welfare by restraining and regulating the use
of liberty and property

Characteristics

a. Most pervasive, least limitable, most demanding

- Police power may be exercised as long as the activity or the property sought to be
regulated has some relevance to the public welfare
b. May not be bargained away through the medium of contract
- Impairment clause must yield to the police power whenever the contract deals with a
subject a ecting public welfare
c. Dynamic
- Moves with the moving society it is supposed to regulate
d. Not exhaustive
- May be exercised as often as it is necessary for the protection or the promotion of the
public welfare

Who exercises said power?

GENERAL RULE: National Legislature/Congress

EXCEPTION:
Valid delegation of legislative power:
▪ President
▪ Administrative boards
▪ Lawmaking bodies in municipal levels
General Welfare Clause – enact such ordinances and issue such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out and discharge the
responsibilities conferred upon it by law, and such as shall be
necessary and proper to provide for the health, safety, comfort and
convenience, maintain peace and order, improve public morals,
promote the prosperity and general welfare of the municipality and
the inhabitants thereof, and insure the protection of property therein.
(Secs. 91, 149, 177, 208, Local Government Code)

MMDA vs. Garin, GR No. 130239, April 15, 2005

Police power, as an inherent attribute of sovereignty, is the power vested by the

Constitution in the legislature to make ordain, and establish all manner of
wholesome and reasonable law, statutes and ordinances, either with penalties or
without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and
welfare of the State, and for the subjects of the same.

Having been lodged primarily in the National Legislature, it cannot be exercised by

any group or body of individuals not possessing legislative power, unless delegated
through law.

Use at your own risk.

Notes by: A. Cortez | AY 2021-2022 | 3
ff
fi
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II | FATHER SATURNINO URIOS UNIVERSITY

• No mandamus is available to coerce the exercise of police power. It is entirely up

to the legislature to decide whether it should act against a certain police problem
• The choice of measures or remedies, provided they conform with the requisites
for a valid exercise of police power, lies within the legislative’s exclusive
discretion
• The ascertainment of facts upon which the police power is to be based is a
legislative prerogative.

Tests of Police Power

1. Lawful subject
• The interests of the public generally requires the exercise of the police power
• The activity or property sought to be regulated a ects the public welfare

2. Lawful means
• The means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the
purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals
• Both the end and the means must be legitimate

Balacuit v. CFI, G.R. No. L-38429, June 30, 1988

To invoke the exercise of police power, there must be a public necessity which
demands the adoption of proper measures to secure the ends sought to be
attained by the enactment of the ordinance. Moreover, the methods or means used to
protect the public health, morals, safety or welfare, must have some relation to the end
in view, for under the guise of the police power, personal rights and those pertaining to
private property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded by the legislative
department.

In the present case, the ordinance is not justified by any necessity for public
interest. The evident purpose of the ordinance is to help ease the burden of cost on the
part of parents who have to shell out the same amount of money for the admission of
their children. A reduction in the price of admission would mean corresponding savings
for the parents, however, the petitioner are the ones made to bear the cost of these
savings. The ordinance does not only make the petitioners suffer the loss of earnings but
it likewise penalizes them for failure to comply with it. Moreover, there is no discernible
relation between the ordinance and the promotion of public health, safety, morals and
the general welfare.

Lozano vs. Matinez, 146 SCRA 323 (1986)

The enactment of BP 22 is a declaration by the legislature that, as a matter of public

policy, the making and issuance of a worthless check is deemed public nuisance to be
abated by the imposition of penal sanctions.

Although not legal tender, checks have come to be perceive as convenient substitutes
for currency in commercial and financial transactions. The basis or foundation of such
perception is confidence. If such confidence is shaken, the usefulness of checks as
currency substitutes would be greatly diminished. Any practice, therefore, tending to
destroy that confidence should be deterred for the proliferation of worthless checks can
only create havoc in trade circles and the banking community.

The effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcends the private interest of the
parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the community at
large.

Use at your own risk.

Notes by: A. Cortez | AY 2021-2022 | 4
ff
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II | FATHER SATURNINO URIOS UNIVERSITY

Del Rosario vs. Bengzon, 180 SCRA 521 (1989)

The law implements the constitutional mandate for the State to protect and promote the
right to health of the people and to make essential goods, health and other social
services available to all the people at affordable cost.

The prohibition against the use by doctor of “no substitution” and/or words of similar
import in their prescription, is a valid regulation to prevent the circumvention of the law. It
secures to the patient the right to choose between the brand name and its generic
equivalent since his doctor is allowed to write both the generic and the brand name in his
prescription form. The law aims to benefit the impoverished majority of the population in
a still developing country like ours.

Tablarin vs. Judge Gutierrez, 152 SCRA 730 (1987)

The police power is the pervasive and non-waivable power and authority of the
sovereign to secure and promote all the important interest and need of the general
community. An important component of that public order is the health and physical safety
and well-being of the population, the securing of which no one can deny is a legitimate
objective of governmental effort and regulation.

Moreover, the regulation of the practice of medicine in all its branches has long been
recognized as a reasonable method of protecting the health and safety of the public.
Thus, legislation and administrative regulations requiring those who wish to practice
medicine first to take and pass medical board examination have long ago been
recognized as valid exercises of governmental power.

The government is entitled to prescribe and admission test like the NMAT as a means
for achieving its states objective of upgrading the selection of applicants into medical
school and of improving the quality of medical education in the country.

Carlos Superdrug Corp. v. DSWD, et al., GR No. 166494, June 29, 2007
The law is a legitimate exercise of police power which, similar to the power of eminent
domain, has general welfare for its object.

The Senior Citizens Act was enacted primarily to maximize the contribution of senior
citizens to nation-building, and to grant benefits and privileges to them for their
improvement and well-being as the State considers them an integral part of our society.

Police power as an attribute to promote the common good would be diluted considerably
if on the mere plea of petitioners that they will suffer loss of earnings and capital, the
questioned provision is invalidated. Moreover, in the absence of evidence demonstrating
the alleged confiscatory effect of the provision in question, there is no basis for its
nullification in view of the presumption of validity which every law has in its favor.

Zoning and Regulatory Ordinances

Ermita-Malate Hotel & Motel Operators v. City Mayor, 20 SCRA 849 (1967)
The challenged ordinance was enacted to minimize certain practices hurtful to public
morals. Due to the alarming increase in the rate of prostitution, adultery and formication
in Manila traceable in great part to the existence of motels, which provide a necessary
atmosphere for concealed entry, presence and exit and thus become the ideal haven for
prostitutes and thrill seekers.

Moreover, the increase in the licensed fees was intended to discourage establishments
of the kind from operating for purpose other than legal, and also to increase the income
of the city government. Licenses for non-useful occupations are also incidental to the
police power and the right to exact a fee may be implied from the power to license and
regulate.

The ordinance was intended to curb he opportunity for the immoral or illegitimate use to
which such premises could be and are being devoted.

Use at your own risk.

Notes by: A. Cortez | AY 2021-2022 | 5
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II | FATHER SATURNINO URIOS UNIVERSITY

Cruz vs. Paras, 123 SCRA 569 (1983)

The municipal council shall enact such ordinances and make such regulations, not
repugnant to law, as may be necessary and proper to provide for the health and safety,
promote prosperity, and improve the morals, peace, good order, comfort, and
convenience of the municipality and the inhabitants thereof, and for the protection of
property therein.

“An ordinance is valid, unless it contravenes the fundamental law or a statute, or unless
it is against public policy, or is unreasonable, oppressive, partial, discriminating, or in
derogation of common right.”

It is a general rule that ordinances passed by virtue of the implied power found in the
general welfare clause must be reasonable, consonant with the general powers and
purposes of the corporation, and not inconsistent with the laws or policy of the State. If
night clubs were merely then regulated and not prohibited, the ordinance would pass the
test of validity.

The objective of fostering public morals, a worthy and desirable end can be attained by a
measure that does not encompass too wide a field. The purpose sought to be achieved
cold have been attained by reasonable restrictions rather than an absolute prohibition.

It is clear that in the guise of a police regulation, there was in this instance a clear
invasion of a personal or property rights, personal in the case of individuals desirous of
patronizing those night clubs and property in terms of the investments made and salaries
to be earned by those therein employed.

Velasco vs. Villegas, 120 SCRA 568 (1983)

The objective behind the enactment of the ordinance is to be able to impose payment of
the license fee for engaging in the business of massage clinic and in order to forestall
possible immorality which might grow out of the construction of separate rooms for
massage of customers.

Magtajas vs. Pryce Properties, 234 SCRA 255 (1994)

To be valid, an ordinance must conform to the following requirements:
1. It must not contravene the constitution or any statute
2. It must not be unfair or oppressive
3. It must not be partial or discriminatory
4. It must not prohibit but may regulate trade
5. It must be general and consistent with public policy
6. It must not be unreasonable

Casino gambling is authorized by PD 1869. This decree has the status of a statute that
cannot be amended or nullified by a mere ordinance. Hence, it was not competent for
the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City to enact Ordinance No. 3353
prohibiting the use of buildings for the operation of casino and Ordinance No. 3375-93
prohibiting the operation of casinos.

Presley vs. Bel-Air Village Association, 201 SCRA 13

The provisions of the Deed of Restriction are in the nature of contractual obligations
freely entered into by the parties and is considered as valid and enforceable. However,
these contractual stipulations on the use of the land even if said conditions are
annotated on the torrens title can be impaired if necessary to reconcile with the
legitimate exercise of police power.

Jupiter Street has been highly commercialized since the passage of Ordinance No.
81-01. The records indicate that commercial buildings, offices, restaurants, and stores
have already sprouted in this area. Hence, there is no reason why the questioned hot
pan de sal store be prohibited from operating in said area.

Use at your own risk.

Notes by: A. Cortez | AY 2021-2022 | 6
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II | FATHER SATURNINO URIOS UNIVERSITY

Tano v. Socrates. G.R. 110249, August 27, 1997

The LGC explicitly mandates that the general welfare provisions of the LGC shall be
liberally interpreted to give more powers to the local government units in accelerating
economic development and upgrading the quality of life for the people of the community.
Moreover, it also devolved powers in the enforcement of fishery laws in municipal
waters. This necessarily includes enactment of ordinances to effectively carry out such
fishery laws within the municipal waters.

In the present case, the questioned Ordinances have two principal objectives:
(1) to establish a closed season for the species of fish or aquatic animals covered
therein for a period of five years and;
(2) To protect the corals of the marine waters of the City of Puerto Princesa and the
Province of Palawan from further destruction due to illegal fishing activities.

The accomplishment of the first objective is well within the devolved power to enforce
fishery laws in municipal waters, such as PD 1015, which allows the establishment of
closed season. The realization of the second objective falls within both the general
welfare clause of the LGC and the express mandate thereunder to cities and provinces
to protect the environment and impose appropriate penalties for acts which endanger
the environment.

City of Manila v. Judge Laguio, G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005
To successfully invoke the exercise of police power as the rationale for the enactment of
the Ordinance and to free it from the imputation of constitutional infirmity, not only must it
appear that the interests of the public generally require an interference with private right,
but the means adopted must also be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of
the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. It must be evident that no
alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private rights can
work.

The Ordinance was enacted to address and arrest the social ills purportedly spawned by
the establishments in the Ermita-Malate area which are allegedly operated under the
deceptive veneer of legitimate, licensed and tax-paying nightclubs, bars, karaoke bars,
girlie houses, cocktail lounges, hotels and motels.

The object of the Ordinance was, accordingly, the promotion and protection of the social
and moral values of the community. Granting for the sake of argument that the objectives
of the Ordinance are within the scope of the City Council’s police powers, the means
employed for the accomplishment thereof was unreasonable and unduly oppressive.
The worthy aim of fostering public morals and the eradication of the community’s social
ills can be achieved through means less restrictive of private rights. It can be attained by
reasonable restrictions rather than by an absolute prohibition. The closing down and
transfer of businesses or their conversion into businesses allowed under the
ordinance have no reasonable relation to the accomplishment of its purposes.

Ortigas vs. Feati Bank, 94 SCRA 719

While non-impairment of contracts is constitutionally guaranteed, the rule is not
absolute, since it has to be reconciled with the legitimate exercise of police power.

Resolution No. 27 (s.1960) declaring the western part of highway 54 was passed by the
Municipal Council of Mandaluyong in the exercise of police power to safeguard or
promote the health, safety, peace, good order and general welfare of the people in the
locality. Based on the conditions prevailing in the area, especially where lots Nos. 5 and
6 are located, it is not only in front of the highway but industrial and commercial
complexes have flourished around the place.

Having been expressly granted the power to adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or
regulations, the municipality of Mandaluyong, through its Municipal council, was
reasonably justified under the circumstance, in passing the subject resolution. Hence,
the nonimpairment of contracts clause under the Constitution will not bar the
municipality’s proper exercise of police power.

Use at your own risk.

Notes by: A. Cortez | AY 2021-2022 | 7
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II | FATHER SATURNINO URIOS UNIVERSITY

Pasong Bayabas Farmers Ass. Vs. CA, GR Nos. 142359, May 25, 2004

Section 3 of RA 2264, amending the Local Government code, specifically empowers

municipal and/or city councils to adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations
in consultation with the National Planning Commission. A zoning ordinance prescribes,
defines, and apportions a given political subdivision into specific land uses as present
and future projection needs. The power of the local government to convert or reclassify
lands to residential lands to non-agricultural lands is not subject to the approval of the
Department of Agrarian Reform.

Administrative Rules and Regulations

Bautista vs. Junio, 127 SCRA 329 (1984)

Based on the “whereas clause” of the LOI, it is undeniable that the action taken is an
appropriate response to a problem that presses urgently for solution. It may not be the
only alternative, but its reasonableness is immediately apparent. Thus, substantive due
process is not ignored.

In the interplay between such a fundamental right and police power, especially so where
the assailed governmental action deals with the use of one’s property, the latter is
accorded much leeway. Due process, therefore, cannot be validly invoked.

Moreover, it does not militate against the validity of the LOI just because the ban
imposed does not go as far as it could have and therefore could be less efficacious in
character. That was the solution which for the President expressing a power validly
lodged in him, recommended itself. There was a situation that called for a corrective
measure. He decided that what was issued by him would do just that or help in easing
the situation.

Although there are other measures much more conducive to energy conservation,
absent the alleged infringement of constitutional rights the Court cannot adjudge the LOI
as tainted by unconstitutionality.

Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila vs. BOT, 119 SCRA 597 (1982)
It is impractical to subject every taxicab to constant and recurring evaluation, hence,
reasonable standard must be adopted to apply to all vehicle affected uniformly, fairly,
and justly. The span of six years supplies that reasonable standard. The product of
experience shows that by the time taxis have been fully depreciated, their cost has
already been recovered, and a fair return of investment obtained. They are also
generally dilapidated and no longer fit for safe and comfortable service to the public.

Moreover, the Board’s reason for enforcing the Circular initially in Metro Manila is that
taxicabs in said area are subjected to heavier traffic pressure and more constant use.

The overriding consideration is the safety and comfort of the riding public from dangers
posed by old and dilapidated taxis. The State, in the exercise of its police power, can
prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, good order, safety and
general welfare of the people.

Use at your own risk.

Notes by: A. Cortez | AY 2021-2022 | 8
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II | FATHER SATURNINO URIOS UNIVERSITY

Mirasol v. DPWH, G.R. No. 158793, June 8, 2006

Administrative issuance have the force and effect of law. They benefit from the same
presumption of validity and constitutionality enjoyed by statues. The use of public
highways by motor vehicles is subject to regulation as an exercise of the police power of
the State.

AO 1 does not impose unreasonable restrictions. It merely outlines several

precautionary measures, to which toll way users must adhere. These rules were
designed to ensure public safety and the uninhibited flow of traffic within limited access
facilities. Toll ways were not designed to accommodate motorcycles and that their
presence in the toll ways will compromise safety and traffic conditions.

Moreover, the means by which the government chooses to act is not judged in terms of
what is “best”, rather on whether the act is reasonable. The validity of police power
measure does not depend upon the absolute assurance that the purpose desired can
be probably fully accomplished, or upon the certainty that it will best serve the purpose
intended.

Anglo-Fil Trading vs. Lazaro, 124 SCRA 494 (1983)

The Manila South Harbor is a public property owned by the State, hence, operation
within the same is affected with public interest.

Not only does PPA, as an agency of the State enjoy the presumption of validity in favour
of its official acts implementing its statutory charter, it has more than adequately proved
that the integration of port services is far from arbitrary.

A single contractor furnishing the stevedoring requirements of a port has in its favour the
economy of scale and the maximum utilization of equipment and manpower. In turn,
effective supervision and control as well as collection and accounting of the government
share of revenues are rendered easier for PPA. Moreover, the questioned program
would accelerate the rationalization and integration of all cargo-handling activities and
portrelated services in major ports and the development of vital port facilities, project,
and services.

PPA v. Cipres Stevedoring, G.R. No. 145742, July 14, 2005

There is no arbitrariness nor irregularity on the part of petitioner as far as PPA AO No.
03-2000 is concerned. Petitioner was created for the purpose of, among others,
promoting the growth of regional port bodies. In furtherance of this objective, petitioner
is empowered after consultation with relevant government agencies to make port
regulations particularly to make rules or regulations for the planning, development,
construction, maintenance, control, supervision and management of any port or port
district in the country. With this mandate, the decision to bid out the cargo holding
services in the ports around the country is properly within the province and discretion of
petitioner. The discretion to carry out those policy necessarily required prior study and
evaluation and this task is best left to the judgment of the petitioner.

As for respondent’s claim the PPA AO No. 03-2000 violated the constitutional provision
of non-impairment of contract, it should be noted that all contracts are “subject to the
overriding demands, needs, and interest of the greater number as the State may

Use at your own risk.

Notes by: A. Cortez | AY 2021-2022 | 9
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II | FATHER SATURNINO URIOS UNIVERSITY

Chavez v. Romulo, G.R. No. 157036. June 9, 2004

It is apparent from the assailed Guidelines that the basis for its issuance was the need
for peace and order in the society. Owing to the proliferation of crimes which tends to
disturb the peace of the community, President Arroyo deemed it best to impose a
nationwide gun ban. Undeniably, the motivating factor in the issuance of the assailed
Guidelines is the interest of the public in general.

In the instant case, the assailed Guidelines do not entirely prohibit possession of
firearms. What they proscribe is merely the carrying of firearms outside of residence.
However, those who wish to carry their firearms outside of their residence may re-apply
for a new PTCFOR.

If the carrying of firearms is regulated, necessarily, crime incidents will be curtailed.

With the revocation of all PTCFOR, it would be difficult for criminals to roam around
with their guns and it would be easier for the PNP to apprehend them.

Moreover, strict enforcement of such a regulation would tend to increase the security of
the life and limbs, and to suppress crimes and lawlessness, in any community wherein
the practice of carrying concealed weapons prevails, and this without being unduly
oppressive upon the individual owners of these weapons. It follows that its enactment
by the legislature is a proper a legitimate exercise of police power.

EMINENT DOMAIN

- The power of the State to forcibly acquire a private property in order to devote it for public
use, upon payment of just compensation

Who exercises the power?

GENERAL RULE: National Legislature/Congress

EXCEPTION: Valid delegation of legislative power

Under existing laws, the following may exercise the power:

1. Congress
2. President
3. Various local legislatives
4. Certain public corporations
Examples:
▪ Land Authority
▪ National Housing Authority
5. Quasi-public corporations
Examples:
▪ Philippine National Railways
▪ PLDT
▪ Meralco

Moday v. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 368 (1997)

Eminent domain, the power which the Municipality of Bunawan exercised in the instant
case, is a fundamental State power that is inseparable from sovereignty. It is the
government’s right to appropriate, in the nature of a compulsory sale to the State, private
property for public use. Inherently possessed by the national legislature, the power of the
eminent domain may be validly delegated to local government, other public entities and
public utilities.

The Municipality of Bunawan’s power to exercise the right of eminent domain is expressly
provided for in Batas Pambansa Blg. 337. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan’s disapproval of
the questioned resolution does not render the same null and void. Under Section 153 of
B.P. 337, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan was granted the power to declare a municipal
resolution invalid on the sole ground that it is beyond the power of Sangguniang Bayan or
the Mayor to issue.

Use at your own risk.

Notes by: A. Cortez | AY 2021-2022 | 10
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II | FATHER SATURNINO URIOS UNIVERSITY

Destruction from Necessity

- The right of self-defense, of self-preservation, whether applied to persons or property
- May validly be undertaken even by private individuals

REQUISITES FOR VALID EXERCISE OF EMINENT DOMAIN

1. Necessity of exercise

- The power of eminent domain should be interpreted liberally in favor of the private
property owner
- Condemnation of property is justi ed only if it is for the public good and there is a
genuine necessity of a public character

City of Manila vs. Chinese Cemetery of Manila, 40 Phil 349 (1919)

The general power to exercise the right of eminent domain must not be confused with the
right to exercise it in a particular case. The power of the legislature to confer, upon municipal
corporations and other entities within the State, general authority to exercise the right of
eminent domain cannot be questioned by the courts, but that general authority of
municipalities or entities must not be confused with the right to exercise it in particular cases.

The moment the municipal corporation or entity attempts to exercise the authority conferred,
it must comply with the condition accompanying the authority. The necessity for conferring
the authority upon a municipal corporation to exercise the right of eminent domain is
admittedly within the power of the legislature. But whether the municipal corporation or entity
is exercising the right in a particular case under the conditions imposed by the general
authority, is a question which the courts have the right to inquire into.

2. Property (includes real and person, tangible and intangible property)

GENERAL RULE: Private property are subject to expropriation

EXCEPTION: Public property may be subject to expropriation, provided that it is done by the
national legislature or under a speci c grant of authority

City of Manila vs. Chinese Cemetery of Manila, 40 Phil 349 (1919)

In the present case, there are two conditions imposed upon the authority conceded to the City
of Manila. First, the land must be private; and, second, the purpose must be public.

The cemetery in question seems to have been established under governmental authority.
Moreover, it is alleged that the cemetery in question may be used by the general community of
Chinese, making it a public property. If that was the case, then the petition of the plaintiff must
be denied.

But, whether the cemetery is a public or private property, its appropriation for the uses of a
public street, should be a question of great concern, and its appropriation should not be made
for such purpose until it is fully established that the greatest necessity exists therefor.

CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO EMINENT DOMAIN

1. Money - expropriation of money would be a futile act because of the requirement for the
payment of just compensation, usually also in money.
2. Choses in action - personal right not reduced into possession but recoverable by a suit
at law, a right to receive, demand or recover a debt, demand or damages on a cause of
action, or for a tort or omission of duty.

3. Taking - imports a physical dispossession of the owner wherein her is deprived of all bene cial
use and enjoyment of his property.

Use at your own risk.

Notes by: A. Cortez | AY 2021-2022 | 11
fi
fi
fi
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II | FATHER SATURNINO URIOS UNIVERSITY

May include the following:

o Trespass without actual eviction
o Material impairment of the value of the property
o Prevention of the ordinary uses of the property

Requisites of taking in eminent domain (Republic vs Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336)

1. The expropriator must enter a private property
2. The entry must be for more than a momentary period
3. The entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority
4. The property must be devoted for public use
5. The utilization of the property must be in such a way as to oust the owner and
deprive him of bene cial enjoyment of the property

Lagcao vs. Judge Labra, GR No. 155746, October 3, 2004

RA 7279 is the law that governs the local expropriation of property for purposes of urban
land reform and housing. It provides the order of priority in acquiring land for socialized
housing and the resort to expropriation proceedings as a means to acquiring it.

Private lands rank last in the order of priority for purposes of socialized housing. Moreover,
expropriation proceedings may be resorted to only after the other modes of acquisition are
exhausted. Compliance with these conditions is mandatory.

Nothing in the records indicate that the City of Cebu complied strictly with said conditions
provided under RA 7279. Ordinance No. 1843 sought to expropriate petitioner’s property
without any attempt to first acquire the lands based on the order of priority. Likewise, Cebu
City failed to establish that the other modes of acquisition in the law were first exhausted.
Moreover, prior to the passage of Ordinance No. 1843, there was no evidence of a valid
and definite offer to buy petitioner’s property as required in RA 7160.

Jesus is Lord Christian Foundation vs. Mun. of Pasig, GR No. 155230 August 9, 2005
The right of eminent domain is usually understood to be an ultimate right of the sovereign
power to appropriate any property within its territorial sovereignty for a public purpose.

The authority to condemn is to be strictly construed in favor of the owner and against the
condemner. When the power is granted, the extent to which it may be exercised is limited to
the express terms or clear implication of the statute in which the grant is contained.

The following requisites for the valid exercise of the power of eminent domain by an LGU
must be complied with:

1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local chief
executive to exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue expropriation
proceeding over a particular private property
2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose or welfare, or for
the benefit of the poor or landless.
3. There is a payment of just compensation
4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the property
sought to be expropriated

In the present case, the respondent failed to prove that before it filed its complaint, it made
a written and definite and valid offer to acquire the property for public use as an access
road. The only evidence adduced by the respondent to prove its compliance is the
photocopy of the letter purportedly bearing the signature of Engr. Reyes to only one of the
co-owners, Lorenzo Cuangco.

Moreover, respondent offered the letter only to prove its desire or intent to acquire the
property for a right-of-way. The document was not offered to prove that the respondent
made a definite and valid offer to acquire the property.

Even if the letter was received by the co-owners, the letter is not a valid and definite offer to
purchase a specific portion of the property for a price. It is merely an invitation to discuss
the project and the price that may be mutually acceptable to both parties.

Use at your own risk.

Notes by: A. Cortez | AY 2021-2022 | 12
fi
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II | FATHER SATURNINO URIOS UNIVERSITY

4. Public Use - any use directly available to the general public as a matter of right and not merely
of forbearance or accommodation.

Masikip vs. City of Pasig, GR No. 136349, January 23, 2006

The right to take private property for public property necessarily originates from the
necessity and the taking must limited to such necessity.

Applying this standard, the respondent has failed to establish that there is a genuine
necessity to expropriate petitioner’s property. The records show that the basis for the
passage of the ordinance authorizing the expropriation indicates that the intended
beneficiary is the Melendres Compound Homeowners Association, a private, non-profit
organization, and not the residents of Caniogan. It can be gleaner that the members of the
said association are desirous of having their own private playground and recreational
facility.

The purpose is, therefore, not clearly and categorically public. The necessity has not been
shown, especially considering that there exists and alternative facility for sports
development and community recreation in the area, which is the Rainforest Park, available
to all residents of Pasig City, including those of Caniogan.

Jesus is Lord Christian Foundation vs. Mun. of Pasig, GR No. 155230 August 9, 2005
The subject property is expropriated for the purpose of constructing a road. The respondent
is not mandated to comply with the essential requisites for an easement of right-of-way.
Absence legislative restriction, the grantee of the power of eminent domain may determine
the location and route of the land to be taken unless such determination is capricious and
wantonly injurious. Expropriation is justified so long as it is for the public good and there is
genuine necessity of public character.

The respondent has demonstrated the necessity for constructing the questioned road. The
witnesses testified that although there were other ways through which one can enter the
vicinity, no vehicle, especially fire truck, could enter except through the newly constructed
road in Damayan Street. This is more than sufficient to establish that there is a genuine
necessity for the construction of a road in the area.

Nonetheless, the respondent failed to show the necessity for constructing the road
particularly in the petitioner’s property and not elsewhere.

5. Just Compensation

- Full and fair equivalent of the property taken from the private owner by the expropriator
- The measure of this compensation is not the taker’s gain but the owner’s loss

San Roque vs. Republic, GR No. 163130, September 7, 2007

Eminent domain cases are strictly construed against the expropriator and the payment of
just compensation for private property taken for public use is an indispensable requisite for
the exercise of said power. The Republic manifestly failed to present clear and convincing
evidence of full payment of just compensation. Furthermore, the initial deposit claimed to be
paid by the Republic would not adequately recompense all owners of the lots expropriated.
More importantly, if the Republic had actually made full payment of just compensation, in
the ordinary course of things, it would have led to the cancellation of title, or the annotation
of the lien in favor of the government on the certificate of title covering questioned lot.

Use at your own risk.

Notes by: A. Cortez | AY 2021-2022 | 13