Humedad

Similarities [Nachura]

(1) Inherent in the State (Exercised even without need of express constitutional grant)

(2) Necessary and indispensable (State cannot be effective without them)

(3) Method by which state interferes with private property

(4) Presuppose equivalent compensation (5) Exercised primarily by the legislature

Differences

Police Power Eminent

Domain Taxation

Property Property rights

only Property rights only property or any interest therein. [Dipidio Earth-Savers Multipurpose Association v. Gozun, G.R.

No. 157882, March 30, 2006]

If regulation is the primary purpose, the fact that revenue is incidentally raised does not make the imposition a tax. [Gerochi v.

Department of Energy (2007)]

License Fee (under police power) versus Tax

License Fee Tax Amount is limited to:

(a) cost of permit and (b) reasonable police regulation

Exception: When the license fee is imposed on a

non-useful/beneficial occupation, such as the practice of hygienic and aesthetic

massage, the fee may be large without being a tax. [Physical Therapy Organization v. Paid for the privilege of doing something and may be revoked when public interest so

D.1 POLICE POWER Legislature

Police power is lodged primarily in the national legislature.

Executive

By virtue of a valid delegation of legislative power, it may also be exercised by the president, administrative bodies, and lawmaking bodies of LGUs. [Sec. 16, R.A. 7160]

[T]his power is limited only by the Acts of Congress and those fundamentals principles which lie at the foundation of all republican forms of government. An Act of the Legislature which is obviously and undoubtedly foreign to any of the purposes of the police power and interferes with the ordinary enjoyment of property would, without doubt, be held to be invalid. [Churchill and Tait v. Rafferty (1915)]

Rep. Act No. 7924 does not grant the MMDA with police power, let alone legislative power, and all its functions are administrative in nature. [MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association (2000)]

But the MMDA is duty-bound to confiscate/suspend or revoke drivers' licenses in the exercise of its mandate of transport and traffic management, as well as the administration and implementation of all traffic enforcement operations, traffic engineering services and traffic education programs. [MMDA v. Garin (2005); Sec. 3(b), Rep. Act No. 7924]

D.2 EMINENT DOMAIN

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 instances.

The moment the municipal corporation or entity attempts to exercise the authority conferred, it must comply with the conditions 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.

A statute or charter or a general law may confer the right of eminent domain upon a private entity. [Tenorio v. Manila Railroad Co.

(1912)]

As Exercised By Congress

As Exercised By Delegates Extent of Power

Pervasive and all-encompassing

Can only be as broad as the enabling law and the conferring authorities want it to be

Question of Necessity

Political question Justiciable question.

RTC has to determine whether there is a genuine necessity for its exercise, as well as what the property’s value is.

If not justiciable, there is grant of special authority for special purpose

Re: Private Property Delegate cannot expropriate private property already devoted to public use

D.3 TAXATION

Power may be exercised by:

(1) Legislature (primarily)

(2) Local legislative bodies [Sec. 5, Art. X]

(3) President (to a limited extent, when granted delegated tariff powers under Sec.

28 (2) Art. VI)

II. Private Acts and the Bill Of Rights

In General

It is a declaration and enumeration of a person's fundamental civil and political rights.

It also imposes safeguards against violations by the government, by individuals, or by groups of individuals.

“The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state. Its concern is not the relation between individuals, between a private individual and other individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is to declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder.”

[People v. Marti (1991)]

It is self-executing. [See Gamboa v. Teves (2011)]

Article III contains the chief protection for human rights but the body of the Constitution guarantees other rights as well.

(1) Civil rights – rights that belong to an individual by virtue of his citizenship in a state or community (e.g. rights to property, marriage, freedom to contract, equal protection, etc.)

(2) Political rights – rights that pertain to an individual’s citizenship vis-à-vis the management of the government (e.g. right of suffrage, right to petition government for redress, right to hold public office, etc.) (3) Social and economic rights – rights which

are intended to insure the well-being and economic security of the individual

(4) Rights of the accused – civil rights intended for the protection of a person accused of any crime

Human rights have a primacy over property rights. The rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of civil institutions. [PBMEO v. Philippine Blooming Mills, Co. (1973)]

Bases and Purpose Bases:

(1) Importance accorded to the dignity and worth of the individual.

(2) Protection against arbitrary actions of government and other members of society Purpose:

(1) To preserve democratic ideals (2) To safeguard fundamental rights

(3) To promote the happiness of an individual The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of liberty, equality and security "against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, and the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with general principles.” [Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc. (1973)]

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to withdraw

"certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's rights to life, liberty and property, to free speech, or free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." [West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638]

Accountability

Rule: The Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against acts of private individuals. The equal protection erects no shield against private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful.

[Yrasuegui v. PAL (2008)]

Constitutional protection applies to government action and is meant as a restraint against sovereign authority. The Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked against private individuals, and governs relations between individuals and the state. [People v. Marti (1991)]

Important Notes:

(1) See Zulueta v. CA (1996), where the Bill of Rights was invoked and applied by the Court against a private party: The constitutional injunction declaring the privacy of communication and correspondence to be inviolable is no less applicable simply because it is the wife who is the party against whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced. The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her.

[Zulueta v. CA (1996)]

(2) Compare with statutory due process, which may be invoked against private individuals. [See, generally, labor cases on illegal termination.] This does not form part of the Bill of Rights.

III. Due Process

Art. III, Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Art. XIII, Sec. 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.

To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property and its increments.

In General

Due process of law simply states that “[i]t is part of the sporting idea of fair play to hear

"the other side" before an opinion is formed or a decision is made by those who sit in judgment.” [Ynot v. IAC (1987)]

It covers any governmental action which constitutes a deprivation of some person's life, liberty, or property.

Definition

Due process furnishes a standard to which the governmental action should conform in order that deprivation of life, liberty or property, in each appropriate case, be valid. xxx It is responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice. Negatively pit, arbitrariness is ruled out and unfairness avoided. xxx Correctly it has been identified as freedom from arbitrariness. It is the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play.

[Ichong v. Hernandez (1957)]

A law hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. [Darthmouth College v.

Woodward, 4 Wheaton 518]

Life is also the right to a good life. [Bernas] It includes the right of an individual to his body in its completeness, free from dismemberment, and extends to the use of God-given faculties which make life enjoyable. [Malcolm]

Liberty “includes the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude. [It] includes the right of the citizen to be free to use his faculties in all lawful ways[.]” [Rubi v. Provincial Board]

Property is anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the subject of contract. It represents more than the things a person owns; it includes the right to secure, use and dispose of them. [Torraco v. Thompson, 263 US 197]

Scope and limitations

Universal in application to all persons without regard to any difference in race, color or nationality.

Artificial persons are covered by the protection but only insofar as their property is concerned [Smith Bell and Co. v. Natividad, 40 Phil. 163]

The guarantee extends to aliens and includes the means of livelihood. [Villegas v. HiuChiong, 86 SCRA 275]

The due process clause has to do with the legislation enacted in pursuance of the police power. xxx The guaranty of due process, as has often been held, demands only that the law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, and that the means selected shall have a real and substantial relation to the subject sought to be attained. [Ichong v.

Hernandez (1957)]

Noted exceptions to due process

(1) The conclusive presumption, bars the admission of contrary evidence as long as such presumption is based on human experience or there is a rational connection between the fact proved and the fact ultimately presumed there from.

(2) There are instances when the need for expeditious action will justify omission of these requisites—e.g. in the summary abatement of a nuisance per se, like a mad dog on the loose, which may be killed on

sight because of the immediate danger it poses to the safety and lives of the people.

(3) Pornographic materials, contaminated meat and narcotic drugs are inherently pernicious and may be summarily destroyed.

(4) The passport of a person sought for a criminal offense may be cancelled without hearing, to compel his return to the country he has fled.

(5) Filthy restaurants may be summarily padlocked in the interest of the public health and bawdy houses to protect the public morals. [Ynot v. IAC (1987)]

In such instances, previous judicial hearing may be omitted without violation of due process in view of: 1) the nature of the property involved; or 2) the urgency of the need to protect the general welfare from a clear and present danger.