CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

I. FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE

A. General Principles
1. The fundamental powers of State, the Bill of Rights, and the power of
judicial review
2. Similarities, differences, limitations

B. Police Power
1. Definition and scope
2. Test of valid exercise
3. Who may exercise
Cases:
Calalang v Williams, 70 Phil. 726 (1940)
Churchill v Rafferty, 32 Phil. 580 (1915)
US v Toribio, GR No. L-5060, January 26, 1910
Ichong v Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155
Lutz v Araneta, 98 Phil. 148
Binay v. Domingo, 201 SCRA 508 (1991)
Ortigas & Co. v. CA, G.R. No. 126102, Dec. 4, 2000
Mirasol v DPWH, 490 SCRA 318 (2006)
Carlos Superdrug Corp. V DSWD, 526 SCRA 130 (2007) and Drugstores
Association of the Philippines, Inc. v National Council on
Disability Affairs, 830 SCRA 25 (2016)
DECS v San Diego, 180 SCRA 533 (1989)
PRC v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 144681, June 21, 2004
St. Luke’s Medical Center Employee’s Association v NLRC, 517 SCRA 677
(2007)
Miners Association of the Phils. v. Factoran, 240 SCRA 100 (1995)
Executive Secretary v Southwing Heavy Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 164171.
February 20, 2006
Acebedo v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100152, March 31, 2000
White Light Corp., vs. City of Manila, 576 SCRA 416 (2009)
Magtajas v. Pryce Properties, G.R. No. 111097, July 20, 1994
Balacuit v. CFI of Agusan del Norte, 163 SCRA 182 (1988)
Agustin v Edu (1979)
MMDA v. Bel Air Village Asso., Inc., G.R. No. 135962. March 27, 2000
MMDA v Garin, GR No. 130230, April 15, 2005
MMDA vs. Viron Transportation, G.R. No. 170656, Aug. 15, 2007

C. Eminent Domain
1. Definition and Scope - Eminent domain is a fundamental state power that is
inseparable from sovereignty. It is the power of a sovereign state to appropriate private
property within its territorial sovereignty to promote public welfare. The exercise of this
power is based on the State's primary duty to serve the common need and advance the
general welfare.  It is an inherent power and is not conferred by the Constitution.  It is
inalienable and no legislative act or agreement can serve to abrogate the power of eminent
domain when public necessity and convenience require its exercise.

University of the East College of Law

First Semester AY 2020-2021
LJD 1202 I-A-2
 The decision to exercise the power of eminent domain rests with the legislature which
has the exclusive power to prescribe how and by whom the power of eminent domain is to be
exercised. Thus, the Executive Department cannot condemn properties for its own use
without direct authority from the Congress.

The exercise of eminent domain necessarily derogates against private rights which must
yield to demand of the public good and the common welfare.  However, it does not confer
on the State the authority to wantonly disregard and violate the individual's fundamental
rights. (Republic v Mupas, G.R. No. 181892 (2015))

Manapat v CA, 536 SCRA 32 (2007)

NAPOCOR v Paderanga, 464 SCRA 481 (2005)
Jesus is Lord Christian School Foundation, Inc. v Municipality of Pasig,
G.R. No. 152230, August 9, 2005
Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 146587, July 2, 2002

2. Police Power and Eminent Domain

City Gov’t of Quezon City v. Ericta, 122 SCRA 759
Didipio Eart-Savers v Gozun, G.R. No. 157882, March 30, 2006
Manila Memorial Park v Sec. of DSWD, 711 SCRA 302 (2013)

3. Taking of Private Property

Republic v. Castellvi, 58 SCRA 336 (1974)
NAPOCOR v Heirs of Sangkay, G.R. No. 165828 (2011)
Philippine Press Institute, Inc. v. Comelec, 244 SCRA 272 (1995)
City of Baguio v NAWASA, 106 Phil. 144 (1959)

4. Public Purpose
City of Manila v. Chinese Community, 40 Phil. 349
Heirs of Ardona v Reyes, 125 SCRA 220 (1983)
Republic v Heirs of Borbon, 745 SCRA 40 (2015)
Manosca v CA, 252 SCRA 412 (1996)
Vda. De Ouano v Republic, 642 SCRA 384 (2011)
Brgy. Sindalan v CA, GR No. 150640, March 22, 2007

5. Just Compensation
Export Processing Authority v Dulay, 149 SCRA 305 (1987)
Asso. of Small Landowners v. Secretary of DAR, 175 SCRA 343
Knetch v. CA, G.R. No. 108015, May 20, 1998 - (as to who is entitled to
compensation)
Secretary of the DPWH v. Sps. Tecson, G.R. No. 179334, April 21, 2015

LBP v Wycoco, G.R. No. 140160 (2004)

In some expropriation cases, the Court imposed an interest of 12% per annum
on the just compensation due the landowner. It must be stressed,
however, that in these cases, the imposition of interest was in the nature of
damages for delay in payment which in effect makes the obligation on the
part of the government one of forbearance.  It follows that the interest in the
form of damages cannot be applied where there was prompt and valid
payment of just compensation. Conversely, where there was delay in
University of the East College of Law
First Semester AY 2020-2021
LJD 1202 I-A-2
 tendering a valid payment of just compensation, imposition of interest is in
order.

LBP v Hababag (2016)

Interest shall be pegged at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum (p.a.) on
the unpaid balance, reckoned from the  time of taking,  or the time when the
landowner was deprived of the use and benefit of his property, such as  when title
is transferred to the Republic of the Philippines (Republic), or emancipation
patents are issued by the government, until June 30, 2013, and thereafter, at six
percent (6%) p.a. until full payment. This is pursuant to BSP Circular No. 799,
series of 2013. 

6. Delegation
Lagcao, et. al. v. Labra, G.R. No. 155746, October 13, 2004

D. Taxation
1. Definition, Nature and Scope; Police Power and Taxation
2. Exercise
3. Double Taxation
4. Tax Exemptions
Cases:
CIR v Algue, G.R. No. L-28896, Feb. 17, 1988
Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works, 110 Phil. 331
Sison v. Ancheta, et. al., G.R. No. L-59431. July 25, 1984
Tan v. del Rosario, 237 SCRA 324
Gerochi v. Department of Energy, G.R. No. 159796, July 17, 2007
Tio v. Videogram Regulatory Board, 151 SCRA 208 (1987)
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G. R. 115455, October 30, 1995
ABAKADA Guro Party-List v. Executive Secretary et al., G.R. No. 168056,
Sept. 1, 2005 (on the uniformity, equitability, and progressivity of
taxation)
Punzalan v. Municipal Board of Manila, 95 PHIL. 46
Lladoc v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 14 SCRA 292
Quezon City v Bayantel, G.R. No. 162015, March 6, 2006

II. THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v Philippine Blooming
Mills, 51 SCRA 189 (1973)

A. Due Process
1. Meaning
2. Person
3. Concept of right to life, liberty, and property
4. Kinds of Due Process
5. Levels of scrutiny
Cases:
Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 148 SCRA 659
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v. City of Manila, 20 SCRA 849
University of the East College of Law
First Semester AY 2020-2021
LJD 1202 I-A-2
 Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 PHIL. 660
Yinlu Bicol Mining Corporation v. Trans-Asia Oil and Energy Development
Corporation, G.R. No. 207942, January 12, 2015
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560. November 19, 2001
Javier v. Comelec, 144 SCRA 194
Galman v Sandiganbayan (1986)
Ang Tibay v. CIR, 69 Phil. 635
Agabon v NLRC, G.R. No. 158693 (2004)
Cudia v. The Superintendent of the Philippine Military Academy, G.R. No.
211362, February 24, 2015
Government of Hong Kong v. Hon. Felixberto Olalia, Jr., G.R. No. 153675,
April 19, 2007
National Housing Authority v. Evangelista, G.R. No. 140945, May 16, 2005
White Light Corporation v City of Manila (2009) - on levels of scrutiny

B. Equal Protection
1. Concept
2. Requisites for valid classification
3. Levels of scrutiny
Cases:
People v Cayat (1939)
Biraogo v Philippine Truth Commission (2010)
Garcia v Drilon, 699 SCRA 253 (2013)
Mosqueda v Pilipino Banana Growers & Export Association, Inc., 800 SCRA
313 (2016)
Villanueva v. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 211833, April 7, 2015
Tecson v Comelec (2004)
Ormoc Sugar Co., Inc. v. Treasurer of Ormoc City, 22 SCRA 603
People v. Jaloslos, G.R. No. 132875-76, February 3, 2000
Phil. Judges Assoc. v. Prado, 227 SCRA 703
Himagan v People, 237 SCRA 538
Central Bank Employees Association v BSP, G.R. No. 148208 (2004)

University of the East College of Law

First Semester AY 2020-2021
LJD 1202 I-A-2