Discusión y Conclusiones

2. Legislative Control Theory- The constitutional convention inferior to the other departments of the govt since it is merely a creation of the legislature.

3. Co-equality Theory- as long as it exists and confines itself w/in the sphere of its jurisdiction, the constitutional convention must be considered independent of and co-equal w/ the other departments of the govt.

Tolentino v. COMELEC

All the amendments to be proposed by the same Convention must be submitted to the people in a single "election" or plebiscite. In order that a plebiscite for the ratification of an amendment to the Consti. may be validly held, it must provide the voter not only sufficient time but ample basis for an intelligent appraisal of the nature of the amendment per se as well as its relation to the other parts of the Consti. w/ w/c it has to form a harmonious whole.

D. Judicial Review Of The Amending Process Gonzales v. COMELEC, supra.

The power to amend the Consti. or to propose amendments thereto is not included in the general grant of legislative powers to Congress. It is a part of the inherent powers of the people-- as the repository of sovereignty in a republican state, such as ours-- to make, and hence, to amend their own fundamental law. Congress may propose amendments to the Consti. merely bec. the same explicitly grants such power. Hence, when exercising the same, it is said that Senators and Members of the HReps. act, not as members of Congress but as competent elements of a constituent assembly. When acting as such, the members of Congress derive their authority from the Consti., unlike the people, when performing the same function, for their authority does not emanate from the Consti.-- they are the very source of all powers of govt, including the Constitution itself.

Since, when proposing, as a constituent assembly, amendments to the Consti., the members of Congress derive their authority from the Fundamental Law, it follows, necessarily, that they do not have the final say on whether or not their acts are w/in or beyond constitutional limits. Otherwise, they could brush aside and set the same at naught, contrary to the basic tenet that ours is a govt of laws and not of men, and to the rigid nature of our Constitution.

IX. FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE A. Police Power

1. Nature- Power of promoting the public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property (Freund)

Basis- Salus populi suprema est lex (the welfare of the people is the supreme law); Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedeas (so use your own property as not to injure another’s property)

2. Distinguished from other powers

Police Power Eminent Domain Taxation Compensation None Just compensation

required NA

Use of

Property Not appropriated for public use

a. Generally - By reason of its function, police power extends to all the great public needs and is described as the most pervasive, the least limitable and the most demanding of the three powers

b. Particular aspects (HMSW) exercise of its police power is not final or conclusive, but is subject to the supervision of the courts

b. Due process c. Equal Protection

5. Tests for validity of exercise of police power

a. Interest of the public generally as distinguished from a particular class required exercise

b. Means employed reasonably necessary for accomplishment of purpose and not unduly oppressive

6. Who may exercise a. Legislature

b. Executive- By virtue of a valid delegation of legislative power, B. Eminent Domain

Article III, Sec. 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

Article XII, Sec. 18. The State may, in the interest of national welfare or defense, establish and operate vital industries and, upon payment of just compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities and other private enterprises to be operated by the government.

Art XIV, Sec. 13. The National assembly may authorize, upon payment of just compensation, the expropriation of private lands to be subdivided into small lots and conveyed at cost to deserving citizens.

Concept – Ultimate right of the sovereign power to appropriate not only public but private property of citizens within the territorial sovereignty to public purpose 1. Who may exercise

 Primarily the national legislature but may be validly delegated to other governmental and private entities

1. Congress 2. President

3. Various local legislative bodies 4. Certain public corporation like MWSS

5. Quasi-public corporations like National Railways, PLDT, Meralco

2. Conditions for exercise - The taking by the State of private property in an expropriation proceeding must be: (PJD)

(1) for public use,

(2) with just compensation, and (3) upon observance of due process.

3. Taking

 Imports a physical dispossession of the owner, or trespass without actual eviction of owner, material impairment of value of property or preventions of ordinary uses for which the property was intended.

 Requisites for taking (Rep. Vs. Castelvi)-PMAPO a. The expropriator must enter a private property b. Entry must be for more than a momentary period c. Entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority

d. Property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected

e. Utilization of the property for public uses must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property

4. Public Use - Public use is equivalent to public purpose. It is not confined merely to use by the public at large (e.g. roads). It is enough that it serves a public purpose, even if it benefits a large group of people short of the public in general (e.g. expropriating property for the relocation of squatters).

5. Just Compensation(FEJM)

 Fair and full

 Efficient

 Just and complete equivalent of the loss which the owner of the thing expropriated has to suffer by reason of the expropriation

 Fair Market value - Price fixed by the buyer and seller in the open market in the usual and ordinary cause of legal trade and competition;

(+) consequential damages (damages to other interest of the owner attributed to the expropriation); (-) consequential benefits (increase of value of other interests attributed to new use of the former property) General Rule: the value of the property as of the date of the filing of the complaint which normally coincides with the taking

Exception: when the owner would be given undue incremental advantage arising from the use to which the government devotes the property expropriated (thus, from the taking, before the filing of the complaint)

C. Taxation