Guys,

These are sir trillana’s inputs.

I’m not sure if this is complete.

God bless to us!

-pinky

ARTICLE III, SECTION 1.

POLICE POWER

Police Power – restriction - Due Process

Restraint Life

limitation Liberty Substantive Procedural

regulation Property -legitimate 1) actual and constructive notice

deprivation -purpose/ 2) court/tribunal vested with

jurisdiction

objective 3) right to be heard

4) decision based on evidence

means must reasonably

be related to the accom-

plishment of objective

(goes to the substance

of the law)

purpose and means

NOT OPPRESSIVE

EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS

• Treat equally

• Classify because of differences

 Classification to be reasonable (People v. Cayat)

1) Substantial distinction/ difference

2) Germane to the purpose of the law

3) Not limited to existing conditions only

4) Must apply to all members of the same class

ARTICLE III, SECTION 2.

4 ELEMENTS OF A VALID SEARCH/WARRANT

1) Probable cause

2) To be determined personally b the judge

3) After examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the

witnesses he may produce

4) Particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or

things to be seized

Without these elements  UNREASONABLE

ARTICLE III, SECTION 3.

-PROBABLE CAUSE

ARTICLE III, SECTION 4.

SEDAÑO CASE—running reelection:

1. Re: fitness for public office- convicted

Defense: fair a. true

b. opinion of author himself

c. exercise of reasonable care

d. statement is based on reasonable ground

e. not a cloak
CONTRERAS – 2. Official acts/policies

-can attack the official acts- can be foul or fair

-can’t attack the public character

3. private character

-not privileged

1st BUSTOS CASE

Once defamatory- presumption in law of malice

Rebut malice show good intention & justifiable motive

Prosecution prove malice in fact

2nd BUSTOS CASE

Prosecution not show malice in fact

ARTICLE III, SECTION 9. PRIVATE PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE
WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION.

EXPROPRIATION FOR RESALE

GUIDO CASE  2.2 hectares- NO- “large landed estate rule”

RPA V. REYES  2.5 hectares- “social amelioration rule”

4 families

BAYLOSIS  67 hectares- went back to Guido rule- “large landed estate

rule”

JM TUASON CASE  went back to “social amelioration rule”

THE PRESENT RULE

2 ISSUES IN JUDICIAL REVIEW FOR RESALE

 1. If eminent domain= SC has final determination

2. If necessity and public character, have to make a distinction between who made the
statute/law

If municipal SC can review

If legislature  Generally: SC can review

Exception: JM Tuason case= “it is not for the judiciary to decide whether
taking is for public use”

EMINENT DOMAIN POLICE POWER

Taking Regulation
Deprivation with Just Compensation required Deprivation with no compensation required
Destruction with utilization for public use No utilization for public use

EXPROPRIATION OF MUNICIPAL PROPERTY

Municipal Corporation governmental or public capacity

Patrimonial, proprietary or corporate capacity

GOVERNMENTAL PATRIMONIAL
If freely accessible to YES NO, pay just compensation if
public you take it.
(City of Baguio v.
NAWASA)
Purpose Can be devoted to any other use Cannot be devoted to other use
(Zamboanga del Norte without just compensation without just compensation
Case)
If lengua Communal/ Regardless of use, provided that it is not paid out by the corporate
Communal lands of a town private funds no compensation=can use it to any other purpse
(Salas case)