Anda di halaman 1dari 5

June 21, 2004 o Constitution section 4: sole judge of all contests relating to

election returns & qualifications of NA members

Marbury vs. Madison  EC doesn’t share its powers with NA since it performs judicial functions
 Law which is repugnant to the constitution is null & void  NA confirmation doesn’t bar EC from deciding protests
 Judiciary as well as other departments are bound by the Constitution  EC & NA power are exclusive
 2 characteristics above are inherent in a WRITTEN CONSTITUTION  EC has exclusive jurisdiction but its not above NA, they have equal
(what is the significance of it being inherent and not essential?) powers
 People establish the Constitution and they ordain it  It’s not a political question since SC is sole arbiter between 2
 Constitution provides for a system of governance for the people constitutional agencies as per constitution
 Written Constitution  SC final arbiter of what the law and the constitution mean
o Safeguard People  In this case: SC has set limits/defines limits of power of bodies of
o It is written – unchangeable by ordinary means government.
o Ordinary statutes which can be repealed, amended, declared Judicial Power – Judicial Review (final arbiter of what the constitution and law
void by the judiciary or legislative says)
 SC’s general jurisdiction under Constitution: Original Jurisdiction over
consuls, ministers, ambassadors & appellate jurisdiction. Questions:
Why is the issue not considered as a political question?
 Congress Statute: Allows SC to issue Mandamus in its original
What is the difference between judicial supremacy vs. judicial review?
 SC: Congress Statute is unconstitutional since it extended the SC’s Tanada vs. Cuenco
original jurisdiction
 Nominating members to the electoral tribunal
 Marbury has it to his commission since he’s been lawfully appointed
 Majority nominated 5 (thru committee on rules) when they’re only
(signing and sealing)
entitled to 3 nominees
 Remedy for Marbury: Mandamus but from a lower court
 Only one minority member who nominated himself alone without waiving
his right to nominate others
What is the fundamental purpose of the Constitution? Why is the Constitution  Cuenco and Delgado: not duly elected
considered as the Fundamental Law?
What are the virtues of a written Constitution? June 23, 2004

Angara vs. Electoral Commission  P. 1060 Tanada vs. Cuenco
 Angara opposes late protest of Ynsua o The courts are called upon to say, on the one hand, by whom
 12/3 Angara confirmed certain powers shall be exercised, and on the other hand, to
determine whether the powers thus possessed have been
 12/8 Ynsua protest
validly exercised. In performing the latter function, they do not
 12/9 – EC set last day for filing protest encroach upon the powers of a coordinate branch of the
 Angara: confirmation/resolution set limit for deadline of filing protests government, since the determination of the validity of an act is
 2 bodies have conflicting/opposing acts not the same thing as the performance of the act. In the case
 SC can resolve conflict we are seeking to ascertain upon whom devolves the duty of
 Judicial Supremacy – power of judicial review; review conflicts between the particular service. In the other case we are merely seeking
constitutional commission to determine whether the Constitution has been violated by
 EC acted within its power (setting deadline and accepting protest) anything done or attempted by either an executive official or the
 EC: Constitutional legislative.
 Respect for co-equal branches
 Judiciary is to uphold the constitution
 Self-restraint  Law in the case: Act to regulate retail business – exercise of police
 Constitution: Provides general pattern or norm of official action  It doesn’t violates rights
 Political Question Doctrine  Inherent in the state thus no need to express it in the Constitution
o Question answerable by people in their primary political  SC Delved on factual background of the case (ratio discussed the
capacity circumstances of the retail trade) – IS THIS ALLOWED? ISN’T THE
o Tasks delegated to some other department/office with POWER INHERENT TO THE LEGISLATIVE BODY?
discretionary power to act
Question: Characteristics of Police Power (as presented in the case)
What is judicial self-limitation? How is it practiced? Does it contradict judicial  Police power is said to be the most positive & active of all governmental
supremacy? processes, and as such is essential, insistent & illimitable.
 The Constitution does not define the scope of police power, but only
Mutuc vs. Comelec
imposes limits in the form of due process & equal protection of the laws.
Ejusdem Generis – general/same kind in this case in same class
Unconstitutional – abridges right to free speech  Equal protection of the laws does not demand absolute equality among
Comelec – purely administrative act residents so long as there is like treatment under like circumstances. If it
Judiciary – interpreting the fundamental law of the land applies to all members of the same class, there is no infringement so
long as the distinction is reasonable
Osmena vs. Comelec
RA 7056, desynchronization of elections, unconstitutional bec: June 28, 2004
 Violates constitutional provision on synchronization
 Extended incumbent’s term Rubi vs. Provincial Board
 Shorten next officer’s term  History: To establish state right to segregate
 Extended campaign period  3 uses of “non-Christian”
o Religious belief
1. People ordain the constitution (consti – yardstick; fundamental and supreme o Geographical
law of the land) o Degree of civilization
2. The constitution is written – not immutable but it can’t be changed in ordinary  Assailed validity of resolution no. 25 by provincial board of Mindoro
manner applied to that of statutes which required segregation of Mangyan based on Admin code sec. 2145
The Constitution is superior to statutes and it governs the conduct of  Petitioner Rubi and other Mangyans
government.  Resolution prohibits Mangyans from leaving the reservation
 Intent in using the term “non-Christian”: uncivilized and they should be
Constitutional Supremacy is exercised by the judiciary (the judiciary endures given more attention
what the consti says in enforced)  Purpose: to civilize and localize Mangyans for their own tribe and to
benefit Christians too; to protect them from nomadic and destructive
Ichong vs. Hernandez activities of the Mangyans
Police Power  Within the police power to promote health, peace, morals, education and
 Scope can’t be defined but we can set limitations (due process and good order of people
equal protection clause)  Is the admin code a valid exercise of police power? YES
 Should always be justified by public/general welfare/interest  Admin Code = Act. No. 2711
 Belongs to legislative body but can be delegated to executive/local o Constitutional
government o Requisites of police power (according to Malcolm)
Due Process: Test of Reason
 Public purpose for public welfare
 Reasonable means related to purpose, reasonable  Police Power – least limitable, usually vested on the legislative but
enough to achieve law. [law a. purpose b. means/acts president also has this power since he had legislative power
accomplishment of the purpose]
 Petitioners’ ground for assailing validity: US vs. Gomez
o Religious Discrimination – Non-Christian =Civilization  License was revoked (due to dishonourable conduct) but continued
o Due Process to practice
o No Slavery  Errors p. 220
 Judicial proceeding is not always necessary
 Equal protection Characteristics of Police power per case:
o Provincial Board had the right to issue such ruling  The state has the general power to enact laws in relation to persons and
 Valid delegation of power property to promote public health, morals, safety and welfare.
 Police power cannot be deprived from the state – to deprive it from the
People vs. Ferrer state would be to destroy the purpose of the state
 RA 1700 Anti-subversion act
June 30, 2004
 Purpose: Cope with menace of subversion which presents clear, present
Ermita Malate Hotel-Motel vs. City Mayor of Manila
and grave danger.
 Purpose of stature as seen in Astorga’s note: increase in clandestine
 Issue: WON it’s unconstitutional
operations such as prostitution, adultery and fornication (should be
o Bill of attainder – No, you should be knowing and act. Mem
o Due Process – Observed since the act is reasonable
 Not question on wisdom, they just want to make sure its reasonable
US vs. Pompeya
 General Provision: Regulation of Hotels & Motels, give detailed info, limit
 Statute: Penal
use to 2x per day
 Valid:
 Out of necessity
o History – State protects us thus we should protect state too
 Petitioner questioned constitutionality
o It’s within the police power of the state to require people’s
 SC: It’s constitutional
responsibility of state
o Police power to prevent prostitution, etc.
 But they failed to prove that he met certain conditions
o Not vague
Characteristics of Police power per case:
o City government has power to enact rules for their cities since
 Police power is inherent on this power of the state and cannot be limited
they are more aware of the necessities in their jurisdiction
in the interest of presuming public order and preventing conflict of rights.
 Police power is so extensive that the courts have not been able to define
 Should the court resort to explanatory note? WON these facts exists?
it, such that each case is decided on its merits
 Court can’t inquire into wisdom/necessity of a law unless they need to
Agustin vs. Edu prove reasonableness of law which is under jurisdiction
 Issue: WON LOI 229 is unconstitutional
Notes per case
 Issued by president in his capacity as president with legislative power
 Police power, being the most essential, insistent and least limitable of
 Requires all motor vehicle owners to own EWD, Failure to do such
powers aims to safeguard public morals, and must be respected until
/present EWD upon registration, they won’t be able to get a license/won’t
clearly shown to violate constitutional rights
be registered
 There is no controlling and precise definition of due process. It is the
 Constitutional
standard to which governmental action must conform in order that life,
o Police power – promotes public safety
liberty or property deprivation is valid.
o Adheres to 1968 Vienna convention which senate ratified into
Buck vs. Bell – shows the depth and scope of police power or the extent of  Toribio’s defense: it only governs acts in municipal slaughterhouse, he
police power. based it on his own interpretation
 No problem in procedural due process (steps in fling petition)  If SC accepted Toribio’s defense:
 Supt. Doesn’t have unbridled discretion o Anyone can slaughter anywhere where there’s no mun.
 Substantive due process: reason in meeting goal slaughterhouse
 Constitutional: sterilization gives them lib. Because they are o Will defeat the purpose of the law
institutionalized to prevent reproduction
 Purpose of statue: to prevent feeble-minded from furthering their race Additional notes per case:
(coz it’s hereditary)  A large discretion is vested in the legislative to determine public interests
 Police power can require citizens to give up their life so sterilization is and the measures necessary for their protection.
valid (lesser sacrifice)  The justifications of police power exercise are:
 State just wants to prevent proliferation of feeble-minded people who o the interests of the public (versus a specific class) require
might be producing offspring who can be criminals later on interference
 Valid purpose – for public welfare o must be through reasonable means, and not oppressive. The
determination of proper exercise of police power is subject to
Rutter vs. Esteban the court’s supervision.
 RA 342: Moratorium on debts for 8 years from time of claim from Phil.
war damage commission. Eminent Domain and taxation: part of police power but not entirely
 Assailed constitutionality for violating constitutional provision on
impairment of contracts JM Tuason vs. LTA
 Moratorium: Postponement of fulfilment of obligations decreed by state  Issue on expropriation of Tatalon estate
thru med of court/legislature – application of sovereign power  JM Tuason contests fact that occupant are being considered as owner
 Moratoriums are not invalid in general they don’t impair contracts when  ED: State right in taking property of privilege owners with just
in exercise of police power compensation to owners. With sufficient safeguards to owners.
 Test of reasonableness of moratorium: determination of period of  Purpose of ED: right of government to take private property; purpose of
suspension of remedy – should be definite and reasonable the taking – for public purpose; owners of the property should be
 Main issue: WON 8 years is a reasonable remedy? compensated
 SC: No. It’s oppressive and unreasonable
US vs. Causby
Per case details re: police power (police power is limited by:)  Flight = taking of the land when______
 impairment (only remedy, never the substantive right) – determinate and  There was no physical entry of the taking
reasonable suspension  Complaints are planes passing over their property
 justified by emergency situation, temporary and reasonable conditions o Noise
o Chicken business closed, chickens died
US vs. Toribio o Glaring night light
 Act. No. 1147: regulate slaughter of cattles o Deprived sleep with flight
 Purpose  Court of claims: $2K easement for Causby
o Prevent theft and make easy recovery and return of lost,  There’s taking even if there’s no actual and physical invasion of property
strayed, stolen cattle to proper owners (primary)  US defense: air space is within public domain
o Prevent slaughter of cattle fit for agricultural work or those unfit  Case remanded: SC didn’t see description of the nature of the easement
for human consumption  Effect of absence of a contract – contract is NOT a prerequisite for the
 Toribio asked for permit but denied since carabao’s still fit for agricultural exercise of ED (inherent power of the state)
work  Is there necessarily a compensable taking? YES
 Is the local government allowed to expropriate?
QUESTIONS  May Congress set the price for just compensation?
1. Difference between police power and eminent domain  Can congress provide a formula?
2. requisites of eminent domain  May the government take property without paying just compensation?
3. Power of ED? Who’s vested with it?  May it provisionally take property?
4. Conditions that qualify elements of ED
5. What is “taking”? Is this upheld by SC or should lower court further prove or Guido vs. RPA
classify taking?
 Is the local government allowed to expropriate?
6. Factual determination of taking in Causby? Is it affected by the effects on the
chickens?  Can congress set the price for just compensation? No they can just
provide for a formula
July 5, 2004  Taking before payment is possible… ex. US vs. Causby

US vs. Causby Dissent Roxas vs. CA

 Noise and light caused problem  Public use?
 Under tort and not under constitution because its too sweeping and  Just compensation?
broad  How do we know if the government is exercising eminent domain?
o Taking
Main opinion o Just compensation
 ED/Expropriation – value of compensation: owner’s loss not taker’s gain o Public use

Ardona vs. Reyes July 12, 2004

 Proceeds will go to private persons – stand of the petitioner
 Defense of petitioner: tourism not mentioned in the constitution as Republic vs. Juan
practice of ED Power of ED
 Constitution can’t foresee all scenarios  Inherent in the state
 Public use not equal with use by the public  Constitution need not provide for it. It only provides for limits.
 Power of ED inherent in the government/state o Due process
 Constitution: power of ED is inherent with or without constitutional o Equal protection
provision. It merely states limits to the power. There should be (1) o Just compensation
public use (2) just compensation (Note: not a grant of power but restraint  Just Compensation = owner’s valuation / assessment + acq. Cost +
only) appraisal value
 EO 132: not precondition to ED its merely regulatory or administrative to
Phil. Realtors Inc. vs. Santos govern taking of private property short of judicial action by
Eminent Domain purchase/donation
 Inherent power of the state; Constitution does not grant power but  Grounds for complaint: just compensation
provides restraints/limits in general:
o Public use
o Just compensation
 Property involve: both private and public since power is plenary,
something you can’t limit even contracts can’t prohibit the state from
practicing it.

Questions to think about: