Análisis del Modelo: El Discurso del Periodismo Científico

Quezon City for at least 5 years prior to their death, to be determined by competent City Authorities.‖.

 For years, that section of the Ordinance was not enforced but 7 years after enactment, the City Council passed a resolution to request the City Engineer to stop any further selling of lots where the owners thereof have failed to donate the required 6%

space intended for paupers.

 Respondent Himlayang Pilipino reacted by filing a petition for declaratory relief, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction seeking to annul Sec. 9 of the Ordinance in question, alleging that the same is contrary to the Constitution, the Quezon City Charter, the Local Autonomy Act, and the Revised Administrative Code.

ISSUE: WON Sec. 9 of Ordinance 6118 is a valid

exercise of police power - NO

HELD:

 Sec. 9 of Ordinance 6118 cannot be justified under the power granted to Quezon City to tax, fix the license fee, and regulate such business, trades, and occupation as may be established or practiced in the City.

 Bill of rights states that 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

On the other hand, there are three inherent powers of government by which the state interferes with the property rights, namely-. (1) police power, (2) eminent domain, (3) taxation.

 The police power of Quezon City is defined as ―To make such further ordinance and regulations not

repugnant to law as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties conferred by this act and such as it shall deem necessary and proper to provide for the health and safety, …, and for the protection of property therein;

and enforce obedience thereto with such lawful fines or penalties as the City Council may prescribe

 The power to regulate does not include the power to prohibit. The power to regulate does not include the power to confiscate.

o The ordinance in question not only confiscates but also prohibits the operation of a memorial park cemetery, because under Sec. 13 -

―Violation of the provision thereof is punishable with a fine and/or imprisonment and that upon conviction thereof the permit to operate and maintain a private cemetery shall be revoked or cancelled‖. The confiscatory clause and the penal provision in effect deter one from operating a memorial park cemetery.

o It is usually exerted in order to merely regulate the use and enjoyment of property of the owner. If he is deprived of his property outright, it is not taken for public use but rather to destroy in order to promote the general welfare.

o Sec. 9 of Ordinance 6118 is not a mere police regulation but an outright confiscation. It deprives a person of his private property without due process of law, nay, even without compensation.

FACTS:

ICHONG V HERNANDEZ

 Republic Act 1180 or commonly known as ―An Act to Regulate the Retail Business‖ was passed. The said law provides for a prohibition against foreigners as well as corporations owned by foreigners from engaging from retail trade in our country. In effect it nationalizes the retail trade business.

 Petitioner Lao Ichong, for and in his own behalf and on behalf of other alien residents corporations and partnerships adversely affected by the provisions of RA 1180, brought this action to obtain a judicial declaration that said Act is unconstitutional.

o He alleges that the Act violates international and treaty obligations of the Republic of the Philippines, specifically the Treaty of Amity between the Philippines and China.

ISSUE: WON RA 1180 is a valid exercise of police power – YES

RATIO:

 Charter of the United Nations imposes no strict or legal obligations regarding the rights and freedom of their subjects and the Declaration of the Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly contains nothing more than a mere recommendation or a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations

o This can be inferred from the fact that members of the United Nations Organizations, such as Norway and Denmark, prohibit foreigners from engaging in retail trade, and in most nations of the world laws against foreigners engaged in domestic trade are adopted.

 All that the Treaty of Amity between the Philippines and China guarantees is the equality of treatment to Chinese nationals "upon the same terms as the nationals of any other country."

o The nationals of China are not discriminating against because nationals of all other countries, except those of the United States - who are granted special rights by the Constitution, are all prohibited from engaging in the retail trade.

o Even supposing that the law infringes upon the said treaty, the treaty is always subject to qualification or amendment by a subsequent law and the same may never curtail or restrict the scope of the police power of the State.

FACTS:

 Commonwealth Act No. 567, otherwise known as the Sugar Adjustment Act, was enacted due to the threat to the sugar industry by the imminent imposition of export taxes upon sugar. It provides for an increase of the existing tax on the manufacture of sugar, on a graduated basis, on each picul of sugar manufactured, to stabilize the sugar industry so as to prepare it for the eventuality of the loss of its preferential position in the US market.

 Walter Lutz, in his capacity as administrator of the Estate of Antonio Jayme Ledesma, seeks to recover from the CIR the sum of P14,666.40 paid by the estate as taxes, under section 3 of the Act; alleging that such tax is unconstitutional and void, being levied for the aid and support of the sugar industry exclusively, which in plaintiff's opinion is not a public purpose for which a tax may be constitutionally levied.

 CFI dismissed the action, hence this appeal.

ISSUE: WON the tax levied under CA 567 is unconstitutional – NO

RATIO:

 The tax provided for in CA 567 is not a pure exercise of the taxing power. The tax under said Act is levied with a regulatory purpose, to provide means for the rehabilitation and stabilization of the threatened sugar industry. Since sugar production is one of the

great industries of our nation,

its promotion, protection, and advancement, therefore redounds greatly to the general welfare.

LUTZ V ARANETA

Hence, the said objectives of CA 567 are of public concern and CA 567 is therefore constitutional.

 Even from the standpoint that CA 567 is a pure tax measure, it cannot be said that the devotion of tax money to experimental stations to seek increase of efficiency in sugar production, utilization of by-products and solution of allied problems, as well as to the improvements of living and working conditions in sugar mills or plantations, without any part of such money being channeled directly to private persons, constitutes expenditure of tax money for private purposes.

FACTS:

 This case (―land for the landless‖) is a consolidation of several cases because they involve common legal questions, including serious challenges to the constitutionality of specific laws.

o 1 – a petition alleging the constitutionality of PD No. 27, EO 228 and 229 and RA 6657.

Subjects of the petition are a 9-hectare and 5 hectare Riceland worked by four tenants. The tenants were declared as full owners by EO 228 and as qualified farmers under PD 27.

The petitioners now contend that President Aquino usurped the legislature‘s power.

o 2 – a petition by landowners and sugar planters in Victoria‘s Mill Negros Occidental against Proclamation 131 and EO 229.

Proclamation 131 is the creation of Agrarian Reform Fund with initial fund of P50Billion.

o 3 - a petition by owners of land which was placed by the DAR under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer.

o 4 – a petition invoking the right of retention under PD 27 to owners of rice and corn lands not exceeding seven hectares.

 The petitioners in this consolidated petition are rice and sugar landowners. All of which are agricultural lands.

ISSUE: WON the aforementioned legal measures are constitutional - YES

RATIO:

 There are traditional distinctions between the police power and the power of eminent domain that logically preclude the application of both powers at the same time on the same subject. Recent trends, however, would indicate not a polarization but a mingling of the police power and the power of eminent domain, with the latter being used as an implement of the former like the power of taxation.

o To the extent that the measures under challenge merely prescribe retention limits for landowners, there is an exercise of the police power for the regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry out such regulation, it becomes necessary to deprive such owners of whatever lands they may own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is definitely a taking under ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS V